You’re right, but what have we done with that knowledge? Avoided the necessity of 1st order logic and moved into a whole technological blossoming by that avoidance of 1st order logic and moved onto 2nd order logic in the form of Computational Complexity.

You’re right, but what have we done with that knowledge?

Avoided the necessity of 1st order logic and moved into a whole technological blossoming by that avoidance of 1st order logic and moved onto 2nd order logic in the form of Computational Complexity.

——

Computers did not exist until afterwards BECAUSE OF (not in spite of) Godel’s proof,

You can trace the timeline because it is a cause and effect relationship.

Godel’s dissertation: “The Completeness of the Axioms of the First-Order Functional Calculus, solved an open problem that David Hilbert and Wilhelm Ackermann had posed in their 1928 textbook Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik (Foundations of Theoretical Logic).”

From that followed:
“On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems, published in German in 1931″

from there, the work of Church and Turing followed

“In 1936, Alonzo Church created a method for defining functions called the λ-calculus.”

“Also in 1936, before learning of Church’s work, Alan Turing created a theoretical model for machines, now called Turing machines, that could carry out calculations from inputs by manipulating symbols on a tape.”

from that? Computing was possible.

——

Computing bypasses the problem by introducing Time/steps.
In that way, every small movement must be complete before continuing.

But the entire program does not have to make sense. It only to compile properly.

=======

We teach the history of computing all wrong when we focus on Babbage.

Go from Gödel to Turing + Church onto the engineering then to computer languages.

======

The magic of computing is in the steps.
It’s a “stack” of logical statements, all loosely affiliated but who, in total, do not have to have anything to do with one other.

======

I can make a computer say: 1 = -1.
I just did.
It’s so everyday that we hardly stop to consider how amazing this power is.

======

Now just imagine a situation where EVERYTHING you feed into a computer had to be logically consistent in a first order logic manner?

Couldn’t do much with that.

======

I’m using Time = change (as opposed to Platonic realm, where Logic and Math work in an eternal plane).

It just so happens our computers use a clock, although they don’t have to.

======

You can have a computer which completely lacks any database and only has a stack from which is a queue that operates in sequence.

If you use two stacks, you can have stack 1 pull items out of sequence from stack two, so that instead of 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, it’s 3, 2, 2, 2, 4.

=======

There’s always at least 1 sequence, be it a clock or a stack of plates that automatically fall when you pull the bottom one out.

But what happens at each “tick” or plate movement doesn’t matter. It’s “moving stuff around”. What that stuff is doesn’t matter.

=======

Looking it up now: 1954. Post Church/Turing, already in computer era. Probably inspired by computing. A retrofit.

Thing is: it may describe all possibilities, but a computer does not function upon all possibilities, only what step it’s currently on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codomain

=====

It sounds like you could use that Codomain to compute failure points for a piece of software or computer of a given function. Stress testing.But for everyday computing, it’s unnecessary as it’s a “meta”.
=======
The power of computing is that it’s not universal. It’s not describing all possibilities. It’s not computing every function.It can’t.But its capacity to branch to parts unknown is its power.
——-
Exactly. I can write a program that will eat up all the memory of this computer and tie it up, run the video hardware so hot that it melts the very solder holding it in, and a computer will gladly comply.
======
Search algorithms are one of my favorite things. Not doing them but understanding how they function.But before I go into that, I wonder if this may help. Excel, one of my favorite tools on a computer, I saw described as:”non-monotonic dataflow programming /,
concurrent logic programming”.
=======
Now it’s possible to envision every possible kind of data that might possibly flow through a program and figure out in a Platonic realm the scope of possibilities that a particular program might be capable of doing.But a time-based problem solving program is operating in a necessary relative blindness. If you attempt to explore all possibilities, you’re not problem solving but creating excessive branching.
=======
It’s a programming paradigm. But there are language interfaces that mimic Excel functionality in a programming language form. Remember what do they all operate upon?
—-
Also, there are visual programming languages which use no code. Excel, in its fashion, is probably the most user friendly method to access raw computing power that’s around.It’s common. Easy to learn. You can crash your computer with it. You can script it to pull in and operate upon almost any data.
——
Different purposes. If you want an RDBMS, use an RDBMS.But what if you want more columns on the fly?
======
You’re talking about elegance, which is a nice aesthetic and has pragmatic value.But there are ad-hoc situations that a database can’t handle well and the power in Excel – and in computing-as-a-paradigm-shift – is its ability to work concurrently with humans in their time/needs based existence, rather than sitting cross-legged on a mountain considering all possibilities.There is room for both. That’s the thing.
——–
Excel is messy. You can calculate on ANY cell in any which way at any time as needed.The logic is “business logic” which is human needs based, ad-hoc, can’t be fully anticipated.In one sheet, I can make or break relations. They are weak connections, barely normalized.But it is effective, which is why it is still popular.It is not efficient, which is what you are talking about.
=======
SCOPE. Excel doesn’t scale. But it can do a lot within its limitations
——–
You can’t compare Excel to a well constructed database. It’s simply not that., even if it can perform similar functions at times.
——-
It’s not really a database. It’s not really an API. It’s not really a data entry form. It’s not really a reporting window.It’s a workspace constructed of rows and columns, which can connect in any which way, up to approximately 5D I think. (row, column, worksheet, workbook, workbooks)
=======
(Workbooks (workbook (worksheet (columns (rows)))))
—-
It has destructive read/write access to any cell, which makes it dynamic.
——–
And yet, it utilizes its own programming paradigm.
======
It’s all over my head in how it’s presented, but the gist of it, I’ve always had an intuitive understanding, probably as I started off using logic-as-it-is-used-by-computers within writing programs as a boy in BASIC – and I’ve been told through the decades that my style is true “spaghetti code”. So, I never learned “good coding”, never learned logic as it’s used in analytical philosophy, never learned about logical fallacies, until my early 40s.So the notion of an accurate-enough-while-precise-as-possible, knowing full well that it’ll never be both perfectly accurate nor perfectly precise simultaneously, is just how I see things.
=====
You said it well and I’m not discounting the need for robustness. I’m a big believer in stress testing systems and consider it quite irresponsible when profit-making corporations release poorly tested products in order to wait for the bug reports to come in from the users.That’s acceptable in free/open source/crowd built software but not when there’s huge distribution and large profit. [that’s just my feels on that stuff].But rather, I’m making the case for the power computing provides by allowing spaghetti code, or graphics whose little triangles don’t fully close allowing for glitches that allow a gamer the fun of glitching through walls or exploiting gains.That’s an aspect of computing that’s very human and is the aspect I love.Downside is malcontents can also exploit via the same holes for fun or profit (bitmining via unsuspecting hosts, ransomware, etc).First order is fundamental in computing but to me, only at each step. It is the capability of stepping from one to the next, or many running in parallel, dealing with queuing and other things that first order logic simply doesn’t contend with, that is its power.I consider computing a lovely mess.
======
“Okay, you’re talking one specific form of logic that people use mostly for debating.When I talked practical applications in real life, I mean using basic deductions and inductive reasoning to logically explore different lines of thought and determine what course of action to take in my day-to-day life.So yeah, when you rewrite the rules and apply my statement out of context the way you did, it becomes false. My statement is still true though.”
======
Thank you Dave. Most communication breakdowns are not a result of anybody having faulty reasoning capabilities, nor a result of drinking.Rather, I think most commonly it is due to the same word being used in different senses and is often when a technical use is contrasting a more general use.The technical user says, “You can’t do it that way”.
The general user says, “Sure I can”One is reasoning things via their expert niche, one is reasoning via a more generally applicable usage.Commonly I find this in arguments over the words, “religion”, “reason” and “logic” although lately I’ve seen a lot of this problem when folks discuss politics, between “left”, “liberal” and “right”.
=======
I do it both ways. Depends on my mood.
——
I’m no mensa. IQ is either 134 or 142: my mom switched around my sister and my IQ scores as kids so we’d always think the other was smarter, and she tested at 110 or 120, I forget.(but the 142 goes to my sister, I’m sure of it).I love getting pedantic. I’m no pure generalist. But generalist is where I always end back on, even after a session of being pedantic.Diplomacy is at my base. Raised in a house of women, I suspect is a strong causation for that
======
” What is your IQ? 5?” (CH)
is a good sample of
“everything turns into underinformed speculation.” (DB)
======
The Fundamental Uncertainty is Time. Specifically:
a) The future is uncertain.
b) You do not have all of the variables.
Godel implied this.The work of Church/Turing solves this by sidestepping the need for a complete first order algebra, operating over time with flexible variables by allowing swapping of identity (lambda calculus), etc.
=======
Church and Turing are linked to Godel though – and Dave’s statements actually tie into it as well.Church gave us lambda calculus, which allows for flexible identities.Turing gave us time.Together:
“Lambda calculus (also written as λ-calculus) is a formal system in mathematical logic for expressing computation based on function abstraction and application using variable binding and substitution. It is a universal model of computation that can be used to simulate any Turing machine.”
======
Humans are not Turing machines.
But we’re far closer to Turing machines utilizing Lambda Calculus than we are to propositional logic.
=======
(or rather, dammit, “Turing machines utilizing Lambda Calculus are far closer to human reasoning than propositional logic.is to human reasoning.”or:Turing > propositional logic)
=======
Dave wasn’t talking about formal logic but rather excessive use of logic (as in “over reasoning a problem”).
======
In this case, Dave is high accuracy, low precision.
You are low accuracy, high precision.
Dave’s point _is_ all over the place but it has a center, which I can see.But you’re missing his point, and you are stuck in a corner whereby you’re looking for high precision (formal logic) when he isn’t talking about formal logic.
======
That’s why you probably feel as if you’re trying to nail Jelllo to a wall.
======
“ According to logic itself. Once you introduce an unknown unknown into the system, all deductions carry an asterisk that says “Barring any unforeseen occurrences”Meaning they cease being concrete and 100% undeniable. (Deductions are the inferences that are depended on because they’re set in stone)Also, inductive reasoning can’t move forward with an acceptable level of certainty. It can move forward, for sure, but that asterisk looming there turns, lets say, 90% probable inference into ??% probable inference.”
=====
Exactly. You’re hitting a target with great precision, finding logical inconsistencies, etc. But you’re working in absolutes, causing you to miss the center of Dave’s target, even though from an absolute POV, you’re hitting ANOTHER area of the target precisely.
=======
“Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results “
======
The big computer program used to predict weather, is written in FORTRAN.It is millions of lines of code, written over a period of about 50 years.An astounding human achievement.Yet it can only go out a couple of days with any hope of accuracy.A drunk driver is far more unpredictable even than that, even though there are fewer options., as your life is at stake and you don’t have much computing power or time to decide your next move.
=======
Oh regarding Dave? I can’t guarantee but I think he is mocking us all – well, not me as much but a little – for being reliant on fictional certainties, when in reality, certainty levels in probabilities fall dramatically as each new variable is introduced into the system.
=====
AI’s too primitive still. It’ll get there.Why FORTRAN? Precision. Also, recreating it is a massive undertaking. There are alternatives but as far as I know the most precise (AND accurate) is the monster FORTRAN program, which runs on supercomputers and is continually updated by scientists daily worldwide.
=======
Dave started by mocking pedandic reliance on certainties but moved on to BEING pedantically certain about an ACTUAL certainty: That what he said is what he said and what he meant is what he meant.
=======
You pointed a contradiction that exists from your perspective.From your perspective, you understood him and were precise about a flaw in his use of formal logic.But I think you missed that he is talking of probability and not formal logic.Probability is not a part of formal logic. There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_logic though.
=======
Facts:
a) I’m sitting on a chair with a cup of coffee, doing this and other things.
b) I enjoying engaging with and watching intelligent people engage with each other and me in close to real time. (live)
c) I’m emotionally distanced from an online conversation as I’m sitting in a comfortable ugly chair drinking a cup of coffee.
d) If you’re on my friends list, you’re probably smarter than me. I like to learn by engaging, challenging and being challenged.
e) Dave is wrong in his delivery and conclusion about the wallet story.
f) I have yet to respond to Alex’ counterpoints in other threads about Godel –> Church/Turing connection and how you can complete something by working around it and moving forward anyway.
======
Might be. Depends on the character of the clientelle. That sets the probabilities.
——
Depends on the character of the clientelle. That sets the probabilities.If you’re in a fundamentally unsafe environment, or if you yourself are a walking fundamentally unsafe environment, it changes the parameters. But if you’re basically a walking safe environment surrounded by walking safe environments, it changes the parameters.Usually it’s a strange mix with various percentages of probabilities.I trust no one 100% with everything but I also don’t NOT trust everyone 100%. Rather, I set levels of trust and what I can trust them about.Person A can’t be trusted with money. But they won’t stab me.
Person B can’t keep a secret but they can be trusted to watch your stuff.
etc
====================
Oh, I think everybody but the most wealthy coddled individuals knows some level of self preservation and personal accountability.A lot of what looks normal is a facade. Everybody knows it’s a facade but all play along hoping nobody exposes the truth.Big roleplay.
======
Recent example from politics: 2 immigrant kids died under Trump. Countering that is typical “but Obama did” logic, which is, “But under Obama 12 immigrant kids died”.They miss a few points with that response but one of their big misses?Trump’s turning us into SJWs because NOW we have to actually start to face a bit of how fucked up America’s harsh immigration policies have been for years.Big roleplay. Don’t expose that it’s a roleplay.That’s not that there’s not genuine caring and empathy: There is, definitely. A lot of outrage is also actually real outrage.But, a lot of it is also roleplay
——-
So in your bartender story, people might get mad at the bartender because, as Trusted Authority Figure, his role was to hold onto Lost & Found and treat that Private Property of Lost Wallet Man with a greater importance than his own.But by giving the wallet away, he broke character.
——-
Eh. I think everybody ultimately sets their own life rules but roleplaying dominates social interaction.I don’t mind some of it as it sets common expectations that are easy to play along with and work around and work with. They say lying is the lubricant of society and I think that’s true.But there’s layers to lying just as there is to truths.
——-
Honesty about “the ball falls after you throw it up in the air” is good. Honesty about, “How I really feel about you” is mostly pointless social power plays.
====
Childlike honesty gets trampled upon early. It’s not rewarded in children and few beyond the age of 8 maintain it.You’ll get honest emotional reactions frequently. But honest factual information is harder to come by. Honest social information is usually just in trusted circles, if you’re lucky enough to have it.Barring that, there’s diplomacy, ,which covers a lot of this territory and allows society to function.I don’t think it’s going to collapse. It may collapse economically around 2023-5 for other reasons but socially I don’t think there’s much difference. Maybe a little extra agitation in the air but not really even much of that.

======
News/internet is not a gauge but whatever your current surroundings are might be.
——–
That’s just my take anyway.14 yr old me thought he was so clever in the shower, thinking, “The secret to your future self is hidden in your daily routine”.

Carried that with me as “mine”.

Six months ago, I finally looked it up. 30 years as “my quote”, such a clever boy was I.

But no. It was from some motivational guy. I forgot who. Word for word. Probably heard it on TV. Oh well. Not so clever.

——-
Thank you. Wrote almost 3000 words in this post, most under your comment.

Now it’s past 3000 with this part. Epic.

======