home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   sci.logic      Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa      262,912 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 262,276 of 262,912   
   olcott to Richard Damon   
   Re: have we been misusing incompleteness   
   31 Dec 25 16:42:43   
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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.   
      
      
   --   
   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-DOS v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca