It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: NoClue
a reply to: neoholographic
I find patterns to be a good metalanguage. It helps breaking the perceived reality into a simple form, that can be processed with our still limited brain capacity. If the pattern is simple, yet complex enough to fit most ideas and concepts, it will unlock the meta-verse.
wording the things transmitted by the model is where the problem starts, cause everyone has his own model to interpret reality.
Sincerely No Clue
originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: neoholographic
Question:
Was Gödel inspired or influenced by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? They were about two years apart, was there even a connection between the two?
Here's David Berlinski's take on Gödel... okay, let's go eat!
Godel's theorem is proved using statements that refer to themselves. Such statements can lead to paradoxes. An example is, this statement is false. If the statement is true, it is false. And if the statement is false, it is true. Another example is, the barber of Corfu shaves every man who does not shave himself. Who shaves the barber? If he shaves himself, then he doesn't, and if he doesn't, then he does. Godel went to great lengths to avoid such paradoxes by carefully distinguishing between mathematics, like 2+2 =4, and meta mathematics, or statements about mathematics, such as mathematics is cool, or mathematics is consistent. That is why his paper is so difficult to read. But the idea is quite simple. First Godel showed that each mathematical formula, like 2+2=4, can be given a unique number, the Godel number. The Godel number of 2+2=4, is *. Second, the meta mathematical statement, the sequence of formulas A, is a proof of the formula B, can be expressed as an arithmetical relation between the Godel numbers for A- and B. Thus meta mathematics can be mapped into arithmetic, though I'm not sure how you translate the meta mathematical statement, 'mathematics is cool'. Third and last, consider the self referring Godel statement, G. This is, the statement G can not be demonstrated from the axioms of mathematics. Suppose that G could be demonstrated. Then the axioms must be inconsistent because one could both demonstrate G and show that it can not be demonstrated. On the other hand, if G can't be demonstrated, then G is true. By the mapping into numbers, it corresponds to a true relation between numbers, but one which can not be deduced from the axioms. Thus mathematics is either inconsistent or incomplete. The smart money is on incomplete.
What is the relation between Godel’s theorem and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe in terms of a finite number of principles? One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted. One example might be the Goldbach conjecture. Given an even number of wood blocks, can you always divide them into two piles, each of which can not be arranged in a rectangle? That is, it contains a prime number of blocks.
Although this is incompleteness of sort, it is not the kind of unpredictability I mean. Given a specific number of blocks, one can determine with a finite number of trials whether they can be divided into two primes. But I think that quantum theory and gravity together, introduces a new element into the discussion that wasn't present with classical Newtonian theory. In the standard positivist approach to the philosophy of science, physical theories live rent free in a Platonic heaven of ideal mathematical models. That is, a model can be arbitrarily detailed and can contain an arbitrary amount of information without affecting the universes they describe. But we are not angels, who view the universe from the outside. Instead, we and our models are both part of the universe we are describing. Thus a physical theory is self referencing, like in Godel’s theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent or incomplete. The theories we have so far are both inconsistent and incomplete.
originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Nice thread, thanks for reminding us in what will, for some, feel like a timely synchronous reminder of things one used to know, yet which had 'fallen beyond the bounds of the system' due to distraction in the new media age..
originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: neoholographic
Ain't it beautiful how everything has converged?
Science, spirituality, philosophy, math, and QM: Are we not living in a wonderful time of grand convergence?
For me: everything converged into nothingness, revealing that nothing is our reality, and the world of things emanates out of nothingness.
And of course: it's unprovable, and unfortunately irritates many folks.
You know the refrain: "show me evidence, or it's BS".
But that doesn't quite stand-up to GIT, (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem), does it?
What about us having ..."...contingent existence..."... ?
Does that stand-up-to, or escape GIT?