Oops. Did you miss where I said “layman’s terms”.
Try again. Trust me - I’m reasonably clever.
Can I scrub your back? 
My OP in this thread is a highly condensed and somewhat simplified version of my argument. Take a look.
And in a few cases, Spiritus said things that contradicted mathematicians’ explanations of GIT. I could tell that those statements were grossly wrong just by thinking about them.
For instance, SM said GIT shows that there are statements that have no proofs, and that this was trivial because they were simply statements that are always wrong. This is NOT what GIT says. It says that with a finite number of initial assumptions (axioms) and operations that can be applied to those axioms to generate theorems (basic rules that allow new statements to be made) there will always be statements that are true but cannot be proven with those axioms.
Take a look at this
And this This link’s proof of Godel’s Theorem is relatively simple and easy-to-understand. Especially take a look at the commentaries.
I’ll see your Rudy Rucker quote (who I love, BTW), and raise you one by W.C. Fields: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
Ok, so your position is that GIT will make statements that cannot be proven - correct statements, and SM’s position is that sometimes GIT provides statements without proofs - false statements?
Is that about right?
This naive (on so many levels) statement makes me think you are just begging for a whipping simply for the attention at this point.
Just a hunch.
Well, I don’t have any of either. I’ll just bludgeon them with truth instead.
Almost. SM, among other stupid claims, insists that GIT merely demonstrates that there are some things that can’t be proven ever. (This was about halfway down the fifth page of my GIT thread if anyone is interested in confirming my recollections.)
This is just plain dumb. GIT shows that there are always true statements that can’t be proven in a consistent system. If the system is inconsistent, you can get it to “prove” anything – and who cares about that?
Take a look at the examples I posted. The statement “this statement cannot be proven in this system of axioms” can’t be false – because if it’s false, there’s a proof of the statement, and a consistent system can’t prove something that’s false. So it must be true – but the system can’t show that it’s true.
If you add extra axioms to the system, it may be possible to prove a formerly unprovable statement, but there will then be new statements that can’t be proven.
SM also implies that since inconsistent systems can exist in the world (like peoples’ mistaken ideas), the world isn’t limited by GIT. He doesn’t understand a very basic point that’s made many times in Godel, Escher, Bach (a really neat book to read): a consistent system can be used to simulate an inconsistent one, but not vice versa.
Oh, and that reminds me:
FranticMad, who suggested that I held my position because I was mentally ill and inquired as to my welfare:
You are utterly incapable of telling the difference between rational arguments and absurdity couched in impressive terms. You can’t tell the difference between insanity and mere epic frustration. I doubt very much you could tell your own alimentary orifices from cavities in the terrestrial sphere.
Go soak your head in hydrofluoric acid.
Jinwicked is taking a long, cold shower. Tuckerfan is in the queue to scrub her back. Ferrous mentioned a beer earlier, and it’s Saturday night here, so I’m going over to the pub to try to forget this thread (or maybe engage some of the punters in the ‘completeness’ of Goedel’s Theorem). They might have an interesting (and more comprehensible) slant on it than TVAA has been able to supply.
Anybody else up for a pint?
Okay, the PIT part of this is too pathetic to bother with. TVAA has his panties all in a wad because I dare to disagree with him. Most people manage to handle disagreement in GD without throwing tantrums and sputtering insults like a hyperventilating schoolgirl. shrug TVAA has a heavier cross to bear.
Since he seems determined to present his GD “arguments” in this thread, though, I’ll take this one pass to show teh deficiencies of his reason. It won’t take too long. Actually, it probably will. TVAA has said a lot of stupid things in this thread already.
[ul][li]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. [/li]Please reread the bolded part until comrpehension sets in. Or until you pass out from hunger, whichever comes first. You wanted to derive an ethical system from logic. Under most logical systems, a contradiction can be used to prove all things. That makea it a little difficult for you to use a contradiction to reliably derive an ethos.
[li]Theories of ethics are obviously statements about the world! Without a world to observe, what systems of ethics are there to explain? [/li]I simply asked you a question. Do you consider ethics to be a sub-discipline of physics? Now, I could also point out the sheer ignorance required to pretend that all ethical systems are necessarily descriptive rather than prescriptive . . . In fact, I think I just did. You consistently rage about as if your understanding of a word is the only understanding possible. You consistently look like a fool when you do so.
[li]He brings up the nature of the label we apply to the concepts, then claims that I’ve brought it up. [/li]You did bring it up, as I demonstrate quite clearly in the GD thread this has to be the lamest element of your very very lame rant. How pathetic do you have to be to keep going back to an argument over who said “the label doesn’t matter” first. :wally
[li]I clearly explain a series of events wherein environemental pressures produce creatures with specific ethical systems; he claims I’ve merely made an assertion. [/li]Yes, because your assertion was not “creatures exist with specific ethical systems”. really, how hard is to to understand that in order to derive a logical result you have to provide an argument that actually has that result as the conclusion.
[li]He is too stupid to understand that a “value” consists only of an organism’s response to stimulus. [/li]No. You are too stupid to understand that that sentence is an assertion of value, not a logical demonstration of value.
[li]Evolution can indeed explain the existence of persistant patterns of matter that are “alive” – these living things will have “values” in that they’ll respond differently to different things. [/li]No shit. Who made the claim that evolution could not explain the existence of living things? Not I. Not anyone else in the thread in question. What I do claim is that: “Survival is the only/best ethic” is not a claim that you have derived logically. It is one that you assert without demonstration.
[li]I then consider the case that ethics is not at all subjective, but objective. [/li]Yes, you consider it. What you don’t do is demonstrate how that case allows you to derive an ethical system from pure logic. Once again, you simply state that it is so. this is a recurring theme in TVAA posts. Say something is so. When asked to demonstrate that claim, say it is so again. Repeat as necessary, making sure to call folks idiots and morons for not understanding how brilliant a creature is TVAA.
[li]When are computers NOT generating theorems in a system capable of generating arithmetic? [/li]Almost all the time.
[li]Computers perform operations! [/li]Yes. Performing operations is not the same as deriving theorems in a Peano Axiomatization.
[li]We acknoledge that computers compute – they perform operations on input. That is enough to generate the statements of arithmetic. [/li]No, it is not. A computer that is doing nothing but replicating input strings onto a screen is not deriving theorems in a Peano Axiomatization. Amazingly enough, I have needed to point this out to TVAA more than once.
[li]Spiritus talks about TMs whose program generates all statements, regardless of the input. This is indeed a valid case, but he misses a very important point:[/li]Nope. You are just about to make a very stupid mistake.
[li]The TM can be represented by another UTM that models what it’s doing. That model – the computer program – cannot be inconsistent, as it wouldn’t be able to describe the behavior of the TM if that were the case. And since the program is modeling a system that applies operations, it’s sufficiently complex to generate arithmetic – so GIT applies. [/li]This is the stupid mistake. Actually, it is a coule of stupid mistakes rolled on top of each other. First, he repeats his mistaken assertion that GIT applies to all UTM’s regardless of what they are doing. Second, he thinks that the consistency of the UTM doing teh modeling has some implication for the statements being generated by the TM. This is simply wrong. The TM is generating all possible statements, including contradictions. That list of statements cannot be consistent. (Actually, it isn’t even a system, just a list of statements, so “consistent” doesn’t even apply. However, if you try to reduce the list of statements into an axiom set the sysem those axioms define would be necessarily inconsistent.)
[li]GIT still applies to the TM! The workings of the Turing Machine are limited by it. Every computational device is limited by GIT, even Spiritus. [/li]No, this is another of those cases where you just keep repeating assertions and thinking that means you have proved them. GIT requres a very specific set of conditions to apply before it holds. A computer that simply generates all strings of finite length does not meet those conditions. Nor does a computational device that simply echoes input back to screen. Nor does a pocket calculator. Nor does a Universal Turing Machine that is doing pretty much anything other than deriving statements in an axiomatic system.
[li]I’ve checked my conclusions. I’ve people with degrees in mathematics, physics, and computer science – I’ve even spoken with someone who has degrees in ALL of those fields.[/li]
I AM CORRECT.
Wow. How can I possibly counter the “invisible experts” argument. Wait – I remember. “Uh-uh! My Daddy said that I was right!”
:rolleyes:
Congratulations. That is possibly the most pathetic rhetorical tactic that I have seen since 4[sup]th[/sup] grade.
[li]Of course, this doesn’t help any, since I can’t get these people to lower themselves to post replies to your moronic and mind-numbing statements [/li]I am shocked, simply shocked, that your invisible experts will not be showing up to offer you their support. That’s okay. My Daddy can kick their Daddy’s ass, anyway. :wally
[li]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! [/li]You haven’t a clue as to what I think, obviously. Saying GIT does not restrict all things is not equivalent to saying Nothing is restricted. Maybe you can ask one of your invisible experts to explain that to you.
[li]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. [/li]Ah, yes, your The Matrix was revealed TRUTH argument. You really should have taken the red pill.
[li]And in a few cases, Spiritus said things that contradicted mathematicians’ explanations of GIT. I could tell that those statements were grossly wrong just by thinking about them. [/li]Really? Let’s see if you can find one.
[li]For instance, SM said GIT shows that there are statements that have no proofs, and that this was trivial because they were simply statements that are always wrong. This is NOT what GIT says. [/li]You are correct that that is not what GIT says. It is also not something that I have ever said. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post my actual words instead of your summaries of my words. Your summaries lack a certain . . . shall we say “desirable accuracy”. :wally
[li]Almost. SM, among other stupid claims, insists that GIT merely demonstrates that there are some things that can’t be proven ever. See above. [/li]
My actual claim as that GIT implies that certain statements cannot be proven to be true in a Peano Axiomatization. You can prove those statements by using extended (or simply different) sets of axioms, but that does not imply that the truth holds in the Peano Axiomatization. Our confidence in that conclusion can only be as great as our confidence in the new axiom set. I even provided an illustration by referencing the axiom of choice and ZF set theory. Perhaps you can get one of your invisible experts in mathematics to explain the reference for you.
[li]SM also implies that since inconsistent systems can exist in the world (like peoples’ mistaken ideas), the world isn’t limited by GIT. He doesn’t understand a very basic point that’s made many times in Godel, Escher, Bach (a really neat book to read): a consistent system can be used to simulate an inconsistent one, but not vice versa. [/li]Here’s the point that you don’t understand: “can be” does not imply “is”.
Here’s another point that you don’t understand: a system cannot be proven to be consistent from within itself. That is GIT[sup]2[/sup]. Thus, you can never demonstrate your claim that the Universe itself is a consistent axiomatic system. (Asuming you ever manage to demonstrate that it is an axiomatic system at all.)
[/ul]
Well, that looks like the last of them (for now). I don’t anticipate returning to this thread. TVAA hasn’t shown anything new or interesting. Same old tricks by the same old dog. Sure, he’s lame and half-blind and dumb as a stump, but at least he likes the taste of his own shit.
I tried to read this thread, I really did…
but now my brain hurts and I’m drooling on myself. I think I’m going to go to bed now, I need to lie down.
“Peano Axiomatization” is that like levelling some sort of mexican piano? Definately the geekiest stuff I have ever seen. Fuck knows what it all means
My wife thinks I’m a geek.
I love Star Trek:TNG.
I have a small pewter wizard that blesses my computer.
I have a 28th level Thief named Seamus.
I was my high schools Chess champion and Math Club president.
I showed her this thread. In comparison to you guys, she now thinks of me as Brando in The Wild One. Thanks guys for making me look cool.
And although I have read Rucker, I have little to no clue about the merits of the debate. However, I hereby declare Spiritus the winner 'cause he used blue and was the first to refer to the Peano Axiomatization, which made me chuckle.
For this,
astro, you are my hero.
Haj
I guess one person’s geek is another person’s clueless pinhead. 
TVAA, this is not only lame, but bang out of order, it is clear that Spiritus Mundi et al have a great deal of knowledge that they happily share, and I am sure that if you demonstated the truth of your position they would embrace that truth.
The problem is that despite many pleas for you to show a formal link between GIT and TMs you failed, time and again.
For the record, I have a batchelors degree in mathematics and a masters degree in computer science, and I don’t have the first fucking clue what the logical basis for your just-about-everything-you-care-to-mention-is-subject-to-GIT arguments is.
(Though on some levels I find the ideas you tried to sketch not unappealing, but they’re just too sketchy and not supported by rigorous argument.)
Get over yourself, go back to the original thread and restate your position coherently.
See? Years from now, when you look back on this thread and this argument and say “What did I do wrong?”, you’ll see the above paragraph and realize “It was right there.”
Up 'till then, you had a fighting chance. You were coming across a bit…um…psychotically, (“THEY LAUGHED AT NEWTON! THEY LAUGHED AT EINSTEIN! THEY LAUGHED AT BOZO! AND NOW THEY’RE LAUGHING AT ME”) but not enough to quite undermine your point.
Your appeal to invisible experts, again…just barely within the realm of plausablity, but like pulling the “I’ve got lots of secret e-mails that support me. Dozens! HUNDREDS! No. You can’t see 'em” bit, it again undermines any valid points you might make.
However, that last paragraph where your invisible experts decide that everyone on the SDMB is too damned dumb to understand any of their lofty thoughts? Even if you’re right (and I don’t find the “EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD except me, and my invisible experts IS R-O-N-G, wrong!” convincing), you lost the argument by saying that the undecided people on the SDMB are aren’t bright enough to grasp their points, so they won’t make 'em. Uh-huh.
BTW, your logical fallacy of “Appeal to Dudly Manlove” * here:
**
Fenris
*Dudley Manlove: Captain Eros from PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE. When given a rational argument that undermines his position, his response is “You see? YOU SEE? YOUR STUPID MINDS! STUPID! STUPID!”.
Um…that last bit before the second quote should read
“BTW: Your ‘Appeal to Dudley Manlove’ here didn’t help either:”
Look, goddamit, all I want is a straight answer! Is the fucking cat dead, or not! Damn!