# Spiritus Mundi **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 26, 2003, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273 "2003-04-26T05:09:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/21 "2003-04-26T06:13:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*Your mothers wear combat boots and chiffon evening gowns – and before Labor Day! \*\* Hey punk! That was a hot look in '93! Ah - finally something in this thread I understand. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/22 "2003-04-26T06:16:28Z")
TVAA FWIW when practically every math uber-geek on the SDMB has issues with your interpretation of the OP topic re the Incompleteness Theorem and you start a pit thread arguing how [Dexter voice]stuuuupeeed[/Dexter voice] they are and how your interpretation is the correct one… well I suppose it’s possible they are intellectually obtuse and your perspective is the correct one, but I wouldn’t bet the rent money on it if I were you. ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/23 "2003-04-26T06:17:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by alice\_in\_wonderland \* > \*\*Hey punk! That was a hot look in '93! > > Ah - finally something in this thread I understand. \*\* You didn’t understand **Ferrous** ’ beer and Mr. Spock comment? I always understood that Vulcans were honest-to-goodness Guinness-hounds. Must be I never watched Star Trek enough… ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/24 "2003-04-26T06:21:34Z")
I’ve checked, **astro**. I asked individuals whom I _know_ are capable in these fields if my point was correct. They chided me on my inability to make arguments in rigorous terms… but said I was essentially right. How do you actually know that these “math uber-geeks” actually know what they’re talking about? What types of people come to the SD, anyway? There are the people who’re interested in discussing interesting ideas and learning about misconceptions, and then there are those who only want a forum to scream on. SD attacts plenty of noodlebrains who like attention – how do you know these people don’t fit into the second category? If their arguments became sufficiently complicated, how could you begin to detect problems in them? I can’t stand to reread the threads _I_ started that they posted to… ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/25 "2003-04-26T06:26:45Z")
**Spiritus** and friends think that the universe is somehow free from all restrictions. They think that the universe can do whatever it likes, and adherence to a set of rules be damned! They are unable to realize that anything that exists is already limited and restricted, or it wouldn’t be capable of interacting with us. Things can be defined operationally: things are what they do. That’s why computer scientists and mathematicans _who know what they’re talking about_ recognize that “virtual” realities are just as real and valid as the everyday ones. **SM** is like the people who once claimed that human consciousness was necessary to perform calculations. How do human minds work, then? By “magic” – I mean, by some strange unknown principle that violates the laws those silly mathematicians and physicists make. Fools. ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/26 "2003-04-26T06:27:27Z")
**TVAA** , not to point out the obvious or anything, but are you really so arrogant as to assume that you’re the _ONLY_ person who understands math on the board? You said your “experts” claimed you had an inability to make rigorous arguements. Could that mean that in this written format, where you don’t have the opportunity to immediatly clear up little misunderstandings, that your posts, as they are currently written, are wrong? Are you implying that you are incapable of having expressed yourself poorly in any of the aforementioned threads, leading to confusion and misunderstanding by other posters who have only your written words to go on, and clearly no access to your “experts”. Really, I have no idea what the arguement is about. However, as a completely objective third party I can suggest that this thread is making you look foolish, and not because of your math abilities. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/27 "2003-04-26T06:31:45Z")
I don’t claim to understand math. I understand only a few, relatively basic concepts. However, I have access to people who are experts. I can check my basic ideas with them – and they say I’m right. And no, it’s not that my posts are wrong. They argue that it weakens my position not to use mathematical terminology – the same point that **Spiritus** made, actually. Presumably the farther away from ordinary English his statements become, the harder it is to see how ridiculous his errors are. Check out the threads. Read the links provided in them. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/28 "2003-04-26T06:33:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\ ***Spiritus** and friends think that the universe is somehow free from all restrictions. They think that the universe can do whatever it likes, and adherence to a set of rules be damned! > > They are unable to realize that anything that exists is already limited and restricted, or it wouldn’t be capable of interacting with us. > > Things can be defined operationally: things are what they do. That’s why computer scientists and mathematicans _who know what they’re talking about_ recognize that “virtual” realities are just as real and valid as the everyday ones. > > **SM** is like the people who once claimed that human consciousness was necessary to perform calculations. How do human minds work, then? By “magic” – I mean, by some strange unknown principle that violates the laws those silly mathematicians and physicists make. > > Fools. \*\* You forgot the “BWAA - HA HA HA!” that goes at the end of “Fools”. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/29 "2003-04-26T06:34:03Z")
Good point. BWAA - HA HA HA! ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/30 "2003-04-26T06:38:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*However, I have access to people who are experts. \*\* Ah yes. Your mythical _EXPERTS_. Listen - it’s been said on here before - either put up or shut up. If you can’t defend the position that you’re trying to take without running to “_EXPERTS_” to get your facts straight, then you probably shouldn’t try to defend the position. You know - things get lost in translation and all that. If these _"EXPERTS_" are so interested in the discussion then have them open an account and discuss the issue directly with the parties you are disagreeing with. As I said - I don’t get the math bit - reading the links wouldn’t help me - I would get cranky, and headachy, and grumpy and then my SO would be cheesed off and he has a black belt so you better watch it. :p. But really - trying to make a point by refering to some unknown “_EXPERTS_” is a really, really weak way to argue. ---
**Author:** ![Ferrous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Ferrous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferrous)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/31 "2003-04-26T06:39:17Z")
**TVAA** , I have many friends who are expert in these matters, and they assure me that you are mistaken. See how easy that is? And how convincing? (That is, not very.) ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/32 "2003-04-26T06:39:47Z")
I’m pretty sure I haven’t understood a single word **Spiritus** and **TVAA** have said. 😕😕 ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/33 "2003-04-26T06:41:16Z")
Not to worry **spooje** , with the exception of the fashion reference, I’m pretty in the dark as well. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/34 "2003-04-26T06:41:47Z")
Like I said, I realize it’s not a very good arguing position. I’m not trying to convince all of you. I am, however, officially noting that **Spiritus** is grossly wrong and unable to interpret simple English statements about mathematics. And, in all honesty, the people I know well enough to “lean on” to get them to post _did_ read the threads. They came to the conclusion that posting wouldn’t help anything. “There are dumb people in the world”, they said, and suggested I just give up. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/35 "2003-04-26T06:43:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*I don’t claim to understand math. I understand only a few, relatively basic concepts. > > However, I have access to people who are experts. I can check my basic ideas with them – and they say I’m right. > > \*\* Now this might seem a bit convoluted. but bear with me will ya? If you only understand ‘a few relatively basic concepts’ how do you know that these ‘experts’ are correct in their understanding of the problems? Your faith in them might well be legitimate, but equally it might not be unless _you_ are able to determine the truth or falsity of their knowledge. IMO, because you have no way of assessing that, you really don’t have a logical leg to stand on in this particular argument. Just because they say you are right does not necessarily make you right. Or, on the other hand, they might just be yanking your chain and telling you that you’re right to shut you up. I’m leaning towards the latter. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/36 "2003-04-26T06:46:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*I am, however, officially noting that **Spiritus** is grossly wrong and unable to interpret simple English statements about mathematics. > \*\* Fine. Without citing one of your “_EXPERTS_”, prove it. Provide some online or written citations for your position and I’m quite sure that everyone, **Spiritus** included, will conceed your points. However blathering away about some people that are not posting, have not contributed directly, and, for all we know, communicate to you through your tin-foil hat, doesn’t help your position here. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/37 "2003-04-26T06:46:25Z")
GIT in its formal form is extremely complex and requires moderately heavy mathematical knowledge to understand. It’s sufficiently simple for the layperson to grasp, though. (Much like the ways that Relativity can be understood by anyone familiar with high-school physics and math, although the formal version of the theory is just nasty… ugh, tensors… [shudder].) Consider this, originally written by a guy named Rucker in a book Infinity and the Mind: > [@](#): > > The proof of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows: > > Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all. > Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine. > Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: “The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true.” Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: “UTM will never say G is true.” > Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not. > If UTM says G is true, then “UTM will never say G is true” is false. If “UTM will never say G is true” is false, then G is false (since G = “UTM will never say G is true”). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements. > We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So “UTM will never say G is true” is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = “UTM will never say G is true”). > “I know a truth that UTM can never utter,” Gödel says. “I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal.” > Think about it - it grows on you … > > With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics … It’s related to the Liar’s Paradox. You know, “I am lying”. If it’s true, it’s false; if it’s false, it’s true. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/38 "2003-04-26T06:48:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kambuckta \* > \*\*Now this might seem a bit convoluted. but bear with me will ya? If you only understand ‘a few relatively basic concepts’ how do you know that these ‘experts’ are correct in their understanding of the problems? Your faith in them might well be legitimate, but equally it might not be unless _you_ are able to determine the truth or falsity of their knowledge. IMO, because you have no way of assessing that, you really don’t have a logical leg to stand on in this particular argument. Just because they say you are right does not necessarily make you right. \*\* I can determine that I’m correct, but it always nice to be able to check with someone who’s guaranteed to know what they’re talking about. > [@](#): > > \*\*Or, on the other hand, they might just be yanking your chain and telling you that you’re right to shut you up. > > I’m leaning towards the latter. > > 😃 \*\* Highly unlikely. Of course, I really have no way to demonstrate _that_ to you either… so you’re free to think whatever you like. **Spiritus** is still wrong, though. ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/39 "2003-04-26T06:49:05Z")
Great. So this post makes **Spiritus** wrong how? How about your own interpretation of the material? How about you explane to me, a lay person, why you’re right and he’s wrong. If you truly know your material you should be able to support your position in layman’s terms. Fire away. I have my thinking cap on. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/40 "2003-04-26T06:50:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by alice\_in\_wonderland \* > \*\*Fine. Without citing one of your “_EXPERTS_”, prove it. \*\* That’s what my thread was about! The topic involved a relatively simple consequence of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. It requires only an understanding of what GIT says and of how computation is physically realized… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273.md?page=3)