# A modest proposal **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 22, 2000, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-proposal/17318 "2000-01-22T12:56:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pqlier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/439d5e/32.png) [@pqlier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pqlier)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2000, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-proposal/17318/1 "2000-01-22T12:56:00Z")
That the best model of objective reality has the form of an undecidable proposition. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2000, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-proposal/17318/2 "2000-01-22T15:44:00Z")
damn, and here I thought we were gonna debate eating babies… ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2000, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-proposal/17318/3 "2000-01-22T16:19:00Z")
Does that mean that, if it weren’t for Gödel’s Theorem, this thread would be moot? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2000, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-proposal/17318/4 "2000-01-22T17:54:00Z")
Where’d I put that caret? Oh, here it is: “That the best model of objective reality has the form of an _^humanly^_ undecidable proposition.” ---
**Author:** ![Surgoshan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Surgoshan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surgoshan)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2000, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-proposal/17318/5 "2000-01-22T20:16:00Z")
Good edit, Poly. Pqlier, that is the main problem I’ve got with it (It can’t be proven). However, can you prove that it can’t be proven? How did you decide that it can’t be decided? It’s a minor paradox, but I enjoy it. Perhaps, though, you could offer more info for those of us (me) who haven’t read, what, is it Goebel? * * * I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ccd318/32.png) [@John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Kentzel-Griffin)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2000, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-proposal/17318/6 "2000-01-25T19:19:00Z")
What Godel showed was that in any system strong enough to contain arithmetic, you can construct a sentence that asserts that it (the sentence itself) has no proof. If we assume that the system is consistent, then the statement cannot be proven (since that would make it false) and so it must be true, but unprovable(within the system). Therefore, there are true statments that cannot be proven. The statement cannnot be disproven either. Curiously enough, when you have a statement that cannot be proven or disproven, you can add the statement or its negation to your system and will not introduce a contradiction. * * * Virtually yours, DrMatrix