XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.supp   
   rt.schizophrenia   
   From: being@apolka.sign   
      
   Noah wrote:   
   > one wrote:   
   >> Noah wrote:   
   >>> one wrote:   
   >>>> Noah wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total   
   >>>>>disorder.  Entropy must decrease.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Lots of presumptions in those two statements.   
   >>>   
   >>>Verifiable presumptions, based on mathematics and observation.   
   >>   
   >>Usually, entropy increases, naturally, given: a type of system.   
   >>   
   >>Entropy must decrease, if.   
   >   
   >There can be temporary diversions, but ultimately, it must go to zero.   
      
   A form of heat-death might suggest an approach to absolute zero.   
   Why temperature can't reach zero is beyond me at this time.   
      
   An impression of mine can have as a given: entropy increases.   
   Entropy increases until an equilibrium is reached. Heat-loss occurs.   
      
   To suppose a unverse, the Universe, exists can be supposed.   
      
   To say it's full of matter and energy can be to say a difference   
   between matter, energy and the Universe is said to be.   
      
   To say the Universe is energy can be a saying.   
      
   Matter is energy, solidified in ways as a phase is   
   shifted from and to, being divided by light-squared,   
   just as energy is matter multiplied by c-squared.   
      
   The Universe matters as it is matter. It's what matters.   
   It's energetic as it is, pure energy. And some say there is   
   the invisible matter and the invisible energy which are   
   said to comprise most of what it is, said to be.   
      
   Are they all the same, or different, one may wonder.   
   Is ice or steam different from an ocean as a notion.   
   Does the Universe contain its parts or is it 10k-things.   
      
   Will it die a heat-death and its temperature approach zero   
   or will it go without going, expanding and contracting.   
      
   Is it not you and you not it or   
   is it you and you are it, ore, refined over time.   
      
   >>If order is to be maintained and chaos is to blame, then   
   >>entropy must be contained, or else, all is lost.   
   >>   
   >>Godel might have proved, a system can't prove its own self.   
   >>How his proof isn't a paradox could be a quibble.   
   >   
   >That's cute.  Let's see if we can be a little more precise:   
   >   
   >First note that these are theories, not proofs.   
      
   Good point. Aye.   
      
   >>Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems are among the most   
   >>important results in modern logic, and have deep   
   >>implications for various issues. They concern the   
   >>limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories.   
   >>The first incompleteness theorem states that in any   
   >>consistent formal system F within which a certain amount   
   >>of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the   
   >>language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F   
   >   
   >1+1=2.   
   >Cannot be proven for all 1's and 2's since there are infinite of them.   
   >So the theory states, but it is a theory since it has not been proven.   
      
   Trying to prove what is axiomatic might be fun.   
   Semantics might be able to dictate, to define, what is.   
      
   If 1+1+1 is the same as 3, then it is.   
   The two are not different other than by degree.   
   Names name and seam as they weave.   
      
   One apple, one orange and one tree are three.   
   The three are not other than all the ones naturally.   
   Natural numbers, counting numbers, numbers exist.   
      
   Once upon a time there was a Life tree which   
   branced off of a Universe tree and they both gave   
   without giving brave beings a chance to explore   
   going where beings never went before ... .   
      
   >>According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal   
   >>system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent   
   >>(assuming it is indeed consistent). These results have had a   
   >>great impact on the philosophy of mathematics and logic.   
   >>There have been attempts to apply the results also in other   
   >>areas of philosophy such as the philosophy of mind, but these   
   >>attempted applications are more controversial.   
   >   
   >>How his proof isn't a paradox could be a quibble.   
   >   
   >So there is no paradox or quibble, but you are being cute.   
   >   
   >It is interesting to note that the theories seem to work well for   
   >philosophies of math and logic, but not so much for philosophy of   
   >mind.   
      
   I don't mind his theories nor theorems much, nor if   
   on some level of speaking 1+1 can't be proven to be   
   equal to 2. In the Chuang-tzu is a saying about words.   
      
   When words accomplish what they are set out to do   
   then they can be set aside. We have communicated,   
   you and I, on various levels and a playing field is   
   what can be said to have provided us a means.   
      
   Mouths of the Universe might speak and eat.   
   Swallowing a camel if one can imagine that.   
      
   - straining out gnats ... Thanks again! Cheers!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)