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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, February 18, 2011, 15:42 (4822 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?
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> As I understand you now Godel generalized in his thorem, but it cannot be applied to a very specific set of facts. This is the impression of Godel given to me by the imprecise way it has been presented by various writers: 'Some very specific conjecture, based on fact can never be proven.'
> 
> Yes, no, maybe? It sounds like you are saying 'no'. In the mathematical forest I'm like a babe in the woods.-This is the problem: Godel's proof is for systems that are mathematically formal. Systems that start from axioms (statements asserted or assumed) and follow strict logic.-How many fields do that? Math, theoretical physics. Propositional logic.-In your language, the state of quantum and classical mechanics each explaining aspects of reality but not all is the result of Godel's theorem.-Gravity isn't explainable in quantum mechanics. It is in classical mechanics.

--
\"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.\"