home bbs files messages ]

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

   sci.physics.relativity      The theory of relativity      225,861 messages   

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

   Message 224,402 of 225,861   
   Thomas Heger to All   
   Re: Halting Problem Solved: Automatic Co   
   11 Nov 25 08:29:41   
   
   XPost: sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: ttt_heg@web.de   
      
   Am Montag000010, 10.11.2025 um 18:01 schrieb Ross Finlayson:   
   ...   
   >>> I don't go looking for paradoxes,   
   >>> since there aren't any in a real theory,   
   >>> contradictions though automatically   
   >>> make for counterexamples, then about   
   >>> the "analytical bridges",   
   >>> or ponts is what I call them,   
   >>> not the "invincible ignorance".   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> The "A-Theory" is consistent foundationalism,   
   >>> and complete, yay, even constant and concrete.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >   
   > I never even heard of "set theory" until my mid-20's,   
   > of course though "sets" were introduced in 7'th grade   
   > geometry, which was mostly 8'th graders.   
   >   
   > Churchill was the text in the college logic course,   
   > about the same time I started reading Hegel. I found   
   > the de Morgan's rules of direct implication most useful.   
   > I have a copy of it around here. The contrapositive   
   > is considered the only needful rule.   
      
   Churchill had written about logic?>   
   > So, model theory is defined as there existing a model   
   > meaning there exists a structure, embodying all matters   
   > of relation as they may be, of a theory its objects.   
   >   
   > So, Goedel helps show that _ordinary_ theories like   
   > as after Russell's retro-thesis, can't be consistent   
   > and complete.   
      
   A model and reality are two distinct entities.   
      
   Therefore, a model cannot describe reality as reality is, because a   
   model is usually way simpler then even the smallest parts of nature are.   
      
   So we cannot have both: 'sharpness' of a model and its usability.   
      
   If the description is quite good, the model will become practically   
   impossible to use. If it should be usable, the model needs to simplify.   
      
   Also Goedelian 'completeness' is nonsense, because models of any kind   
   can only address some subset of what we could eventually model.   
      
   TH   
      
   ...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

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


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca