1. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    08 Aug '13 14:50
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    This argument has already been countered on a previous post of mine. I repeat:

    Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved that every system that could be enclosed within a circle depended on something different outside the circle that you have to assume but you can not prove. This means that there are always more things that are true than you can prove and an ...[text shortened]... re is a limitation to science if only naturalitic rules can be considered.


    The Instructor
    Godel's incompleteness theorem has no reference in it to circles. It is a formal proof concerning recursively defined arithmetics. It is the theory itself that is a closed system, not the thing about which the theory is. If the veracity of a statement cannot be proven within the logic of the theory we do an experiment to find the answer. The experiment is not part of the axiomatic system - so we can prove the veracity of a Godel statement by using experiment - up to the uncertainties inherent in the experimental method.
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    08 Aug '13 15:12
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Godel's incompleteness theorem has no reference in it to circles. It is a formal proof concerning recursively defined arithmetics. It is the theory itself that is a closed system, not the thing about which the theory is. If the veracity of a statement cannot be proven within the logic of the theory we do an experiment to find the answer. The experime ...[text shortened]... el statement by using experiment - up to the uncertainties inherent in the experimental method.
    That's a bunch of crap.

    The Instructor
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    08 Aug '13 16:07
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    That's a bunch of crap.

    The Instructor
    We ALL know what you are really after. ANYTHING that helps you refute evolution and the age of the Earth. To that end you desperately troll the internet for bogus research you for some unknown reason think we are supposed to be swayed when it is clear every one of your youtube trolls are in the same boat, whether they are actual scientists or not, all voicing mere opinion and bringing up crap that has been refuted 100 times over but 1000 times over will not drive away you nutters. Your religious OCD has no place in a science forum.
  4. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    08 Aug '13 16:29
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    That's a bunch of crap.

    The Instructor
    Please, tell us more about Gödel's incompleteness theorems and how we ought to interpret them.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    08 Aug '13 17:531 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Please, tell us more about Gödel's incompleteness theorems and how we ought to interpret them.
    I don't want to get in trouble on this forum by giving my interpretation and conclusion, so I will just point you to a wikipedia article on it and to a Youtube video series that gives the theorem in simplified terms and you can draw your own conclusions. The series is actually on the DNA Code and information systems, but I skip to where it explains Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

    Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and the Origin of the Universe
    YouTube

    Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and the Origin of the Universe part 2
    YouTube

    The Existence and Nature of Information
    YouTube

    Quick & Dirty Summary
    YouTube

    The Instructor
  6. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    08 Aug '13 19:29
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I don't want to get in trouble on this forum by giving my interpretation and conclusion, so I will just point you to a wikipedia article on it and to a Youtube video series that gives the theorem in simplified terms and you can draw your own conclusions. The series is actually on the DNA Code and information systems, but I skip to where it explains Gödel's I ...[text shortened]... cwzo

    Quick & Dirty Summary
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkRDbyygT04

    The Instructor
    I actually know a bit about Gödel's incompleteness theorems, having had training in formal logic. They are theorems that pertain to formal logic and don't have anything to do with DNA, life, the universe, etc. I'm not sure how you or the authors of those YouTube videos got that idea. Are you just looking up random articles in Wikipedia and then connecting them to evolution/DNA/Big Bang?
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    09 Aug '13 01:59
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I actually know a bit about Gödel's incompleteness theorems, having had training in formal logic. They are theorems that pertain to formal logic and don't have anything to do with DNA, life, the universe, etc. I'm not sure how you or the authors of those YouTube videos got that idea. Are you just looking up random articles in Wikipedia and then connecting them to evolution/DNA/Big Bang?
    I will let the article and the video speak for themselves. Please interpret them in a scientific way if you can. I will make no other comments on it in this forum.

    The Instructor
  8. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    09 Aug '13 04:06
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I actually know a bit about Gödel's incompleteness theorems, having had training in formal logic. They are theorems that pertain to formal logic and don't have anything to do with DNA, life, the universe, etc. I'm not sure how you or the authors of those YouTube videos got that idea. Are you just looking up random articles in Wikipedia and then connecting them to evolution/DNA/Big Bang?
    Formal logic is something I never had training in (hope it doesn't show 😉). I'd like to rectify that; is there a good book?
  9. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    09 Aug '13 07:061 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I will let the article and the video speak for themselves. Please interpret them in a scientific way if you can. I will make no other comments on it in this forum.

    The Instructor
    interpret them in a scientific way if you can.

    Moron. How can a load of stupid creationist propaganda crap be interpreted in a “scientific way” 😛
    Please keep your religion out of this SCIENCE forum.
  10. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    09 Aug '13 07:52
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Formal logic is something I never had training in (hope it doesn't show 😉). I'd like to rectify that; is there a good book?
    My "traning in formal logic" is restricted to one course I followed during my bachelor's. I don't really feel qualified to recommend any particular book.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    09 Aug '13 08:11
    Originally posted by humy
    interpret them in a scientific way if you can.

    Moron. How can a load of stupid creationist propaganda crap be interpreted in a “scientific way” 😛
    Please keep your religion out of this SCIENCE forum.
    None of that was creationist propaganda.

    The Instructor
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    09 Aug '13 10:36
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    None of that was creationist propaganda.

    The Instructor
    And of course you don't think the incompleteness theory is a good weapon in your fight against real science, a religious stance. You are just interested in seeing the logic and the real scientific truth in the world and the universe, right?
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    09 Aug '13 15:17
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    And of course you don't think the incompleteness theory is a good weapon in your fight against real science, a religious stance. You are just interested in seeing the logic and the real scientific truth in the world and the universe, right?
    Right. It is about truth. Why else should I bother?

    The Instructor
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    10 Aug '13 00:58
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Right. It is about truth. Why else should I bother?

    The Instructor
    So it's you versus 300 years of the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists, every one atheist and having a deeply held secret religion destroying agenda. I wonder if they have secret handshakes and special tatoo's that shows them to be inner members of this vast horde of atheistic religion haters.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    10 Aug '13 04:56
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So it's you versus 300 years of the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists, every one atheist and having a deeply held secret religion destroying agenda. I wonder if they have secret handshakes and special tatoo's that shows them to be inner members of this vast horde of atheistic religion haters.
    You should know. 😏

    The Instructor
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree