That's the only reason why I didn't rep you breh. Trill azz thread, it was great to see so much educated input, props to all y'all
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
- Thread starter SkillClash
- Start date
That's the only reason why I didn't rep you breh. Trill azz thread, it was great to see so much educated input, props to all y'all
exactly
Master @OCCAMS_RAZOR, of the Council of the High Priests of Math, this is worshipful math servant @blackzeus.I have a question Master. Please explain the difference between step 2 and 3, and me saying that because an object as simple as a car obviously has a designer, logically the intergalactic system which is infinitely more complicated has one as well. Are not both in essence a leap of faith based on a logical premise?
this reminds me of people that dont believe in god but believe in aliens.
i thought you said God belivers dont have proof. but you can believe in aliens without any LEGIT proof? what part of the game is that? its the part where you .... ASSUME. the assumption goes like this "well, space is a very large place. so there has to be something else out there"
i ask.. Say's WHO? You, or your faith in that IDea "something must be out there in that big ole space"
or they say "we cant be the only planet that can hold life. we just cant be."
Who told you that? No one did, you told your self that by way of assumption. You ASSUME there is another planet like ours that has life on it. you dont have any legit proof. but your sure have faith.
that sounds like a believer having faith.
all this goes back to the we can solve for blah, assuming N is... assuming X is...
the moment i hit the assumption button i have taking the ability away from the problem or the solution being 100%true.
Last edited:
Insensitive
Superstar
Launch a religious crusade against math and logic brehs.
OCCAMS_RAZOR
Pro
confirmation bias. you're cherry picking elements of my argument that conform to your own biases and discarding the rest. in the proof i presented, 'assume' was an amorphous term used to generalize the proof for all natural numbers. i could have easily replaced 'assume' with 'let P(n) be true for all natural numbers n'. again, i do not disagree with your final conclusions regarding this matter, but your general lack of knowledge on induction doesn't make your argument as forceful as it could've been otherwise.
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
Well, yes and no. It's not so much an assumption as it is highly improbable. The universe is infinite, you might as compare the earth to a sand particle, there's infinite of amount of planets out there, we haven't discovered all of them yet. So the odds are that there has to be other life out there. It's not an assumption, it's a "probability impossibility" if that makes any sense. The same way it's highly improbable that two atoms could collide and create an entity that evolved into a robot (
An assumption for example would be that there MUST be other sentient life forms, meaning other life forms with the ability to reason and tell right from wrong. You don't understand advanced math or logic. What's the point of this thread?
High Council Master of the Math Pharisees,
SkillClash
Banned
Y'all need to get to the background of what is going on here, for a deeper understanding, y'all missin' the point like the Miami Heat. Here is a wiki link on Godel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel#Religious_views
Y'all not realizing that Godel just shat on modern math with his theory. All the major scientists of his era (and let's be real, the 30-50s was the last TRUE era of advancement in scientific theory) were saying evolution this and God doesn't exist that, and faith is b.s. bla bla bla. Godel was like, "O rly?let's have a look see at the basis of your great math, natural numbers. Well I can't believe it, these numbers ain't loyal!
Can I join your religion of math?"
was Godel religious
Y'all need to get to the background of what is going on here, for a deeper understanding, y'all missin' the point like the Miami Heat. Here is a wiki link on Godel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel#Religious_views
Y'all not realizing that Godel just shat on modern math with his theory. All the major scientists of his era (and let's be real, the 30-50s was the last TRUE era of advancement in scientific theory) were saying evolution this and God doesn't exist that, and faith is b.s. bla bla bla. Godel was like, "O rly?Can I join your religion of math?"
Religious may be too strong, but Goedel definitely believed in intelligent design at a minimum.
No you can't breh, the word "assume" is the correct description. Why should P(n) be true for all natural numbers? because you said so?
You don't understand advanced math or logic. What's the point of this thread?
What does one's understanding have to do with the premise of his question? If I ask if the sky is blue, but I don't know what the color blue looks like, does that mean the sky is not blue?
On another note, it's interesting how repeatedly in this thread these "positivist interpreters" (mathspeak for disciples 
) have repeatedly use ad hominems for someone who honestly is just trying to confirm/unconfirm an opinion. Y'all are a bunch of Pharisees if you ask me Claim logic rules when it is has been clearly demonstrated math over an infinite set of elements is also a faith brehs. The basis of all advanced science is calculus, and you wanna talk about religion?
Brown_Pride
All Star
first, 
Second,
Just read through the thread and damn. I'm just smart enough to understand the concepts (i think), but not smart enough to apply the math to prove them, but as with @rapbeats and @blackzeus the moment I heard "Let's assume..." in calculus i was like
.
Then I started asking questions and as complicated as things get essentially you end up with assumptions and self referencing material...and as blackzeus pointed out there's another group of people who do this...
(granted one does require a more drastic "leap of faith" than the other; the leap of faith is still there.)
The other funny odd thing I've noticed about myself and people who hold fast to things like physics and evolution and such is this...
There are many things we don't know to be 100% true, and yet we believe they are true and or we believe they will be proven to be true, for instance the mechanism behind evolution, the theory of man evolving from a monkey (unless i missed something we don't know this 100% to be true), the myriad of things we will most likely never know but can sorta explain via math (e.g. the inside of a blackhole), things that occur on the very macro and very micro level, the list goes on and on. The optimal word in the last run on sentence is BELIEVE. Regardless of whether the idea is proven to be correct or not RIGHT NOW we believe based on faith and a limited understanding that what we believe is the truth. The part I find funny is that science has a built in "i don't know" clause whereby someone can go, "whoops I had it wrong, turns out black holes don't exist after all...another win for science" which conveniently discounts the years people BELIEVED with all their hearts and minds that black holes were the truth. (not that black holes don't exist it's more an example)
Second,
Just read through the thread and damn. I'm just smart enough to understand the concepts (i think), but not smart enough to apply the math to prove them, but as with @rapbeats and @blackzeus the moment I heard "Let's assume..." in calculus i was like
.Then I started asking questions and as complicated as things get essentially you end up with assumptions and self referencing material...and as blackzeus pointed out there's another group of people who do this...
(granted one does require a more drastic "leap of faith" than the other; the leap of faith is still there.)
The other funny odd thing I've noticed about myself and people who hold fast to things like physics and evolution and such is this...
There are many things we don't know to be 100% true, and yet we believe they are true and or we believe they will be proven to be true, for instance the mechanism behind evolution, the theory of man evolving from a monkey (unless i missed something we don't know this 100% to be true), the myriad of things we will most likely never know but can sorta explain via math (e.g. the inside of a blackhole), things that occur on the very macro and very micro level, the list goes on and on. The optimal word in the last run on sentence is BELIEVE. Regardless of whether the idea is proven to be correct or not RIGHT NOW we believe based on faith and a limited understanding that what we believe is the truth. The part I find funny is that science has a built in "i don't know" clause whereby someone can go, "whoops I had it wrong, turns out black holes don't exist after all...another win for science" which conveniently discounts the years people BELIEVED with all their hearts and minds that black holes were the truth. (not that black holes don't exist it's more an example)
first,
Second,
Just read through the thread and damn. I'm just smart enough to understand the concepts (i think), but not smart enough to apply the math to prove them, but as with @rapbeats and @blackzeus the moment I heard "Let's assume..." in calculus i was like
Then I started asking questions and as complicated as things get essentially you end up with assumptions and self referencing material...and as blackzeus pointed out there's another group of people who do this...
(granted one does require a more drastic "leap of faith" than the other; the leap of faith is still there.)
The other funny odd thing I've noticed about myself and people who hold fast to things like physics and evolution and such is this...
There are many things we don't know to be 100% true, and yet we believe they are true and or we believe they will be proven to be true, for instance the mechanism behind evolution, the theory of man evolving from a monkey (unless i missed something we don't know this 100% to be true), the myriad of things we will most likely never know but can sorta explain via math (e.g. the inside of a blackhole), things that occur on the very macro and very micro level, the list goes on and on. The optimal word in the last run on sentence is BELIEVE. Regardless of whether the idea is proven to be correct or not RIGHT NOW we believe based on faith and a limited understanding that what we believe is the truth. The part I find funny is that science has a built in "i don't know" clause whereby someone can go, "whoops I had it wrong, turns out black holes don't exist after all...another win for science" which conveniently discounts the years people BELIEVED with all their hearts and minds that black holes were the truth. (not that black holes don't exist it's more an example)
to you breh, it takes balls to tell someone more knowledgeable than you "yo breh, somethin' ain't right here" The first thing any mathematician/scientist/biologist/chemist will do when you start questioning sh*t is make a fallacious claim to authority and state that you shouldn't question what you don't understand I clearly proved that the induction proof by logic is fallacious and yet they're still arguing I respect a person who says "I don't know" way more than a person who says "don't question me" It's funny at times how the scientists and religious teachers have similar characteristics 
I can tell you don't have any understanding of biology or chemistry to any degree.
Its all chemicals so understanding that certain conditisions favor "life" in the manner that we know it may be possible elsewhere.
Thats infinitely more plausible than the deity asserted by theists.