Concision can mask ambiguity more than elaborating as you, one of the most frequent posters of this list, appear to know well.
But to bask in a list that was based on the discussion of ToE, when it's now closer to the Meeker Instrumental-list, that wonders why the world votes self-dealing billionaires into power, while trivializing notions of metaphysical clarity, inquiry, and doubt implied by Gödel's and similar contributions? I lack the sophistication for this. You reap what you sow and will see the repercussions of an exponentially growing instrumentalist-opportunism, along with its trademark ambiguity, in the news. This always was and remains the "winning" side, because for the more ignorant among us, yours truly among them, it never made much sense. We always wanted to know: "What for?" and apparently lacked modernity, were uncharitable peddlers of words, and all the other insults. On Sunday, January 19, 2025 at 2:30:08 AM UTC+1 Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/18/2025 4:44 PM, PGC wrote: > > > > On Saturday, January 18, 2025 at 10:52:49 PM UTC+1 Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > On 1/18/2025 2:29 AM, PGC wrote: > > First I'll address the rest of your post as there's not really much to > talk about: Uncomputable inference rules (like the ω-rule) aren’t used in > standard physical theories much, so invoking them misses the core point > about Gödel’s incompleteness unless you have some incredible non-standard > result to show; in which case, prove/show it. Again, we can simulate a > finite system for N time steps, but Gödel’s result is not about whether you > can brute-force a finite trajectory—it’s about the existence of statements > in a sufficiently strong formal framework (one that encodes arithmetic) > which no consistent axiom system can decide. > > Sufficiently strong means being able to construct self-referential > language in the system so that "This proposition is unprovable." is a > proposition of the system. Which isn't very interesting. > > > Right. It follows that what you've mainly been doing for the last 2 > decades or so on this list isn't - your words - "very interesting". > > It might have gotten interesting when you crossed paths with people who > tend towards the same. Perhaps the difference is that they had no hidden > ambitions to win; no ties to imagery of themselves as big deals of an email > list or otherwise... or tying their names to conventional interpretations > with a tiny twist, and celebrating their own originality for compensation > of the lack thereof. > > Perhaps the dogmatic application of the predicate "win via poking holes" > to the topic "scientific curiosity regarding Theories of Everything" was > rather too doubt ridden to be Gödelian in spirit (as Gödel had a > feel/sensitivity for when to stop such that good faith could at times be > applied)... and therefore quite - dang I forgot the word - no matter. If it > mattered however, it would be rigid, rather like matter and never collapse. > > Purely unprovable sets of propositions like this are perhaps separate > questions or... to you "a different matter or dust to which we return very > much" and thankfully can be dismissed as such. > > I would tend to agree, also quite unprovably, with your other statement > too: allow one contradiction or troll => allow them all... and be their > king, hold court, and claim that a thing be a thing . > > Moderation? Who cares in a world where lies give you wing and the trolls > solo sing? Post away and teach them too. They need it as much as you. > > > You have a way with words. Lots and lots of words. > > Brent > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/663f4f03-9e58-4ef7-afa9-361063aec9ban%40googlegroups.com.
