XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy
From: polcott333@gmail.com
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)
When we name this proposition G then a proof of G
would be a sequence of inference steps that prove
that they themselves do not exist.
Anything that asserts its own non-existence
is necessarily incorrect.
> Because it is true, and can be proven with the additional knowledge and
> tools of the meta-system, it shows that without the addtional knowledge
> and tools you can't make the proof.
>
> It seems you don't understand that the base system and the meta system
> are different.
>
> Boy, are you stupid.
--
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)
|
