# Spiritus Mundi

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273>\
**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:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/61 "2003-04-26T13:20:31Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by elucidator \*  
> \*\*Look, goddamit, all I want is a straight answer! Is the fucking cat dead, or not! Damn! \*\*

Dunno about the cat, but the horse is. Quit floggin’ it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/62 "2003-04-26T13:29:46Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by elucidator \*  
> \*\*Look, goddamit, all I want is a straight answer! Is the fucking cat dead, or not! Damn! \*\*

Yes it is.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/63 "2003-04-26T13:30:48Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by elucidator \*  
> \*\*Look, goddamit, all I want is a straight answer! Is the fucking cat dead, or not! Damn! \*\*

No it isn’t.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/64 "2003-04-26T13:39:52Z")

</div>

Spiritus:

> [@](#):
>
> ```
> * SM claims that he never said that the concept cannot have properties. However, in an earlier post he said "However, it is entirely possible for good to have a definition that does not admit to logical analysis. (Or perhaps just not one or another method of logical analysis.) " He fails to realize that the only way the concept couldn't be analyzed logically would be if it had no properties. He suggests that the concept could have properties like "self-contradictory" or "non-deteministic", but these concepts and related-concepts ARE analyzed logically frequently.
> Please reread the bolded part until comrpehension sets in. Or until you pass out from hunger, whichever comes first.
> 
> ```

::raises hand::

Do I have to? I’m getting really hungry.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![butter\_pie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aca169/32.png) [@butter\_pie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/butter_pie)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/65 "2003-04-26T13:40:53Z")

</div>

Mmmm… you boys were at it all night, weren’t you?

And **Tuckerfan** , sure, but keep that damn girly poofy thing away from me. Hands only!

[Sexy](http://www.jinwicked.com/images/turing.jpg)…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/66 "2003-04-26T13:45:21Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by TVAA \*  
> \*\*On the fifth page of the linked thread, **Spiritus** says it’s not the case. He has no idea what he’s talking about. \*\*

Now, now, now – look here, it’s all really quite simple. Define a modified universal Turing machine _U’_ as follows: [ul] [li]On unary input _x[sub]1[/sub]_ in _L_, _U’_ converts it to the corresponding binary representation _x[sub]2[/sub] = 1[sup]k[/sup]0y_. This should take no more than _|x[sub]1[/sub]| log |x[sub]1[/sub]|_ steps. Note that the conversion can be performed by repeatedly decrementing the unary number and incrementing a corresponding binary counter. Using a carry-lookahead adder, binary addition can be performed in time _Theta(log n)_. Since we are simply incrementing, however, it may take even less time–possibly _O(1)_. [_]U’ simulates M[sub]y[/sub] on x[sub]2[/sub] for at most t[sub]2/sub steps. We can do this by using an extra worktape for a unary counter which is decremented for each step of M[sub]y[/sub]. [_]_U’_ rejects if _M[sub]y[/sub]_ accepts within the alotted time; otherwise _U’_ accepts.[/ul]From the second point above, we have that _L_ is in _DTIME(t[sub]2[/sub])_, provided that _t[sub]2/sub_ is greater than or equal to _n log n_. Therefore if we take our modified UTM _U’_ as applied to the task of emulating an alternating Turing machine computing the graph clique problem, we find, without loss of generality, that any integer _(a)[sub]2[/sub]_ can be uniquely expressed as a product of the form _(a)[sub]2[/sub] = (p[sub]1[/sub])[sub]2[/sub] (p[sub]2[/sub])[sub]2[/sub] … (p[sub]r[/sub])[sub]2[/sub]_, where the _(p[sub]i[/sub])[sub]2[/sub]_ are prime and _(p[sub]1[/sub])[sub]2[/sub] \<= (p[sub]2[/sub])[sub]2[/sub] \<= … \<= (p[sub]r[/sub])[sub]2[/sub]_. In this case, _y_ is a binary encoding of the list of _(x)[sub]2[/sub]_'s prime factors and their associated certificates. (Because _PRIME_ is in _NP_, each encoded prime has a certificate which can be used to verify its primality in polynomial time.) In the worst case, there will be _log (x)[sub]2[/sub]_ such factors, so the list of factors is polynomial to _|x|_. Furthermore, the certificates are polynomial to their respective primes, and since polynomials are closed under addition and multiplication, it follows that all of _y_ must be polynomial to _|x|_.[/li]  
From this it is clear that even when not operating under constraints of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in a Frinkian-partitioned feature space, our modified UTM would have to reduce the graph-clique theorem (or any isomorphic diagonalizable NP-optimized procedure) to a non-time-constructible phlogistonizable linear-time algorithm before it would be able to reliably compute the probability of finding the third English word ending in _-gry_. (For further references, see “Non-monotonic defeasible complexity classes as applied to a temporal rectangular prism” by Ray _et al._ (1998), available on the [author’s website](http://www.timecube.com/).).

God, I love complexity theory.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![butter\_pie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aca169/32.png) [@butter\_pie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/butter_pie)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/67 "2003-04-26T13:52:17Z")

</div>

Tease!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/68 "2003-04-26T13:57:59Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by psychonaut \*  
> \*\*_U’_ rejects if _M[sub]y[/sub]_ accepts within the alotted time; otherwise _U’_ accepts. \*\*

\< Oprah on Complexity theory \>

This doesn’t seem like the basis of a healthy relationship.

_U’_ should do whatever she feels is right for her future growth, regardless of the actions of _M[sub]y[/sub]_. What she’s essentially saying is "I’ll accept _L_, but only if M[sub]y[/sub] rejects him first.

As it is, by handing control of decisions about her future _to_ _M[sub]y[/sub]_, she’s avoiding responsiblity and will never be the independant, free-spirited variable that we all know that _U’_ is capable of being. She should weight the pros and cons of being with _L_ and if she thinks that’s a good future path for her, she should go after _L_ and th’ hell with M[sub]y[/sub]'s acceptance or rejections! You GO girl!

\< /Oprah on Complexity theory \>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/69 "2003-04-26T14:20:53Z")

</div>

**psycho** , I’m afraid you can’t resolve this by oversimplifying.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/70 "2003-04-26T14:34:32Z")

</div>

OK, this thread has ispired me to A)crack open my copy of Jan Gilberg’s _Mathematics_\* to refresh the whole Godel/Peano thing and then to the public biblio to check out Rudy Rucker’s take on Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem.

(See, this is the stuff Mensa promises to deliver and no dues required at the Dope!)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/71 "2003-04-26T14:37:57Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by psychonaut \*  
> Now, now, now – look here, it’s all really quite simple.

So, **psychonaut** , if I can further simplify your simplification, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is itself incomplete because it can’t determine what happened to the bellhop’s extra dollar (at least in a Frinkian-partitioned feature space).

Am I right.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/72 "2003-04-26T14:48:48Z")

</div>

**TVAA** , since you’ve done us the favour of opening this Pit thread, let me join in **ultrafilter** and **Spiritus** ’s chorus: you’re an idiot.

Specifically, you’re an obtuse chowderhead. You respond to valid arguments by rephrasing your original claims ad nauseam. I gave up posting to your thread around page 3, when this became painfully obvious, because I have better things to do than pound my head against a wall. (Although I applaud **ultrafilter** and **Spiritus Mundi** ’s patience in this matter, which clearly exceeds mine.) You bring to mind the missing and unlamented Archimedes Plutonium, web kook extraordinaire, who had a similar inability to examine the misconceptions so near and dear to him.

Your argument is an pathetic case of hand-waving, and when this is pointed out you berate your accusers for…gasp!..demanding rigour in a mathematical argument. You make gradiose universal claims about computers and number theory and yet evidently did not know what a Turing Machine was at the beginning of the thread. You have no cites to support your case, and no evidence.

And after all of that, when we refuse to bow down before your pathetic bleating, you resort to crap-slinging like this:

> [@](#):
>
> Arrogant, self-agrandizing, pus-for-brains idiots who can believe they’re knowledgeable about logic, philosophy, and mathematics only because they don’t understand enough to know how little they know.

The FUCK??? This, just because someone had the temerity to argue the facts with you? And you call _them_ “self-agrandizing”?

For the record, you ego-maniacal self-_aggrandizing_ little twit: I have a bachelor’s degree in Pure Mathematics and Computer Science. I have worked as a software developer, and taken electives in philosophy and the philosophy of science in particular. And this Thursday I am defending my Ph.D. thesis in topology, concerning research which included a computer-aided attempt to prove an outstanding mathematical conjecture. I think I know a damned thing or two about mathematics and computer science.

And I think you’re full of shit, you offensive little turd.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/73 "2003-04-26T15:05:11Z")

</div>

You’re all making the baby Spock cry.  
:dubious:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/74 "2003-04-26T15:16:55Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by TVAA \*  
> **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.**

I’m not one to roll up my sleeves for a math debate, but now you’re trespassing onto my territory. So, not only have you outwitted every last math expert on this board, but you have unraveled the philosophical mysteries of the universe and existence as well?

You know how the human mind works? Who clued you in, your anonymous cadre of specialists? Why do I get the sinking suspicion they are studying cock-eyed assholes and hence specializing in you?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/75 "2003-04-26T15:17:33Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Billdo \*  
> \*\*So, **psychonaut** , if I can further simplify your simplification, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is itself incomplete because it can’t determine what happened to the bellhop’s extra dollar (at least in a Frinkian-partitioned feature space).
> 
> Am I right. \*\*

In a nutshell, yes. Moreover, the assumption of completeness would violate the well-known principles of the so-called Scarecrow Theorem from elementary geometry, i.e., that the sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/76 "2003-04-26T16:19:48Z")

</div>

If you all could get over yourselves for just a moment…

No one ever actually DEALS WITH THE POINTS I BRING UP.

**Spiritus** does nothing but demand more mathematical rigor and reiterate his claims that I’m wrong. The rest of you never did anything more than that, either.

Additionally, many of you have made **obvious mistakes** when discussing what GIT says – when you actually use normal English instead of mathematical terminology, you screw everything up.

**Orbitfold** , with your vast and deep knowledge of mathematics and computer science: was **Spiritus** ’ explanation about what GIT implies (on page 5 of the GIT thread) correct or not?

I’ve checked. It isn’t. And you couldn’t tell this why, exactly?

The evolution of a physical system is the same as the generation of new statements in an axiomatic system. Are you really telling me that you storied sages can’t understand how that’s true?

Just take the description of the initial condition and apply the operations that describe the interactions between the things in the system. The resulting statements will describe the new configuration of the system.

I don’t claim to understand the mechanism of the brain, but from a cognitive perspective, we use the same strategies to determine theorems as electronic computers do.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FranticMad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c68b51/32.png) [@FranticMad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FranticMad)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/77 "2003-04-26T16:41:40Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by TVAA \*  
> …we use the same strategies to determine theorems as electronic computers do.

Oh, okay. I get it now. That really is quite obvious isn’t it?

I’m sure we can all agree that TVAA has made an excellent point and proven his case.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/78 "2003-04-26T16:48:44Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by TVAA \*  
> \*\*I don’t claim to understand the mechanism of the brain, but from a cognitive perspective, we use the same strategies to determine theorems as electronic computers do. \*\*

Here’s a thought, the mind is not a physical entity, its abstract. You can’t sense it physically. When you ‘hear’ your thoughts or ‘see’ a dream you aren’t using your eyes or your ears, you aren’t picking up a physical stimuli from the world. 5,000 years of great thinkers haven’t figured out how the mind works, and you KNOW that it MUST be explainable within the same framework of a system that we invented.

The best we have done is sketch out some extremely rough foundational ideas, fuck that, we barely know how the brain works let alone the mind. I can’t speak to your math skills, but you are unquestionably the leading asshole in the field of philosophy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FranticMad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c68b51/32.png) [@FranticMad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FranticMad)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/79 "2003-04-26T17:01:08Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by cainxinth \*  
> \*\*I can’t speak to your math skills, but you are unquestionably the leading asshole in the field of philosophy. \*\*

But TVAA has already explained his point, which I will restate for those of you too stupid to have read it.

> [@](#):
>
> Just take the description of the initial condition and apply the operations that describe the interactions between the things in the system. The resulting statements will describe the new configuration of the system.

How much more SIMPLE can it be? Why can you not grasp the clear implications for GIT, the universe, and the mind?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/80 "2003-04-26T17:19:00Z")

</div>

Calling Spiritus Mundi an idiot is rather like pissing in a hurricane. But I guess when you gotta go, you gotta go. Tell us, Vorlon, does it really taste like warm beer?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273.md?page=3)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273.md?page=5)