Science vs. Religion: (Chapter One) (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, February 18, 2011, 11:50 (5026 days ago) @ David Turell


> > What's troubling you?
> 
> I have no idea what Godel did, from what you showed me. I though that he proved you can't prove everthing. What did he do in simple language?-Asking a math guy to be imprecise... (!)-I'll try... hopefully I don't make this worse.-The key parts that make the theorem true are these:-The set of theorems must be axiomatic. Meaning, they are formally defined mathematical systems. Chemistry for example, is not axiomatic. Biology especially is not axiomatic. Experimental physics is not axiomatic, however theoretical physics IS. This might seem confusing, only the nature of how the two sciences are conducted serve as how they are delineated. Experimental physics is designed to test theoretical... it doesn't engage in model building for example, it just gives us an idea on how good is our model, or modifies the theoretical if it's close.-Now, you can always argue that all sciences attempt to reduce to physics, but this has proven difficult in practice.-The meat of the theorem says this: In a formally defined system, there will always be one thing about the system that is true, but isn't described by any combinations of the axioms without contradicting one of them. In mathematics, this is why we have more than one field. Typically a new field arises to explain such an inadequacy. So, it may not be provable in ONE system, but that doesn't mean ALL systems.-This did mean however, that a theory of everything in mathematics was abandoned. This should have told physicists something... at least Hawking listened....

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"