XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 12/31/2025 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/31/25 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/31/2025 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/31/25 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2025 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/25 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/2025 4:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/31/25 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2025 4:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/25 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more muddled,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too easy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lived!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only person in the world that ever checked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People have misunderstood Gödel and proved it by their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel proved that there cannot possibly exist any
>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves do not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing can prove that itself does not
>>>>>>>>>> exist because that forms proof that it
>>>>>>>>>> does exist, dumbo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you are just ignoring context because you are stupid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The statement, with the added information of the meta-system
>>>>>>>>> proves (by a proof in the meta system) that the statment is true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Something else can prove that X cannot prove that
>>>>>>>> X does not exist, AKA your meta-system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing can directly prove that itself does not
>>>>>>>> exist because this forms proof that it does exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, got a source for that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why does my explanation not work?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not that your explanation doesn't work.
>>>>>> It is that it ignores the root cause of why
>>>>>> G is unprovable in F.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, how do you think you can prove it in F?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing can prove that itself does not exist.
>>>> Any such proof would be self-refuting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But it isn't the PROOF that does the proving, it is the statement.
>>>
>>> THe statement G exist, and it is True.
>>>
>>
>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
>> asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)
>
> You keep on repeating that, but show you don't know what it means,
> proving your stupidity.
>
It can only mean one thing when taken 100% literally.
a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.
G says that itself is unprovable
G says that itself has no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
It say nothing at all about any meta-system.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
