XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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.   
      
   --   
   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)