Comment on So much...

homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• Axioms@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Interesting! Could you elaborate on this? I’m intrigued to know the intrinsic flaws.

  source

  • nednobbins@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Kurt Gödel wrote a whole paper on it.

    He used math to show that all statements, in any language, can be expressed as math statements. He then proved that it’s impossible to create any cpnsistent set of math statements that completely describes everything.

    source

    • rooroo@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      That doesn’t make it fundamentally flawed. I also can’t completely describe all muscle movement involved and yet I can walk.

      Gödel’s incompleteness theorem has to be the most overhyped thing since a certain cat. For logicians, it mainly means that “is it probable” is a valid question for prepositions that are otherwise vastly esoteric in nature.

      source
    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      That’s not a flaw. It’s an amazing breakthrough.

      It’s only a flaw for people who want to believe in some imaginary positivism.

      source
    • jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      [deleted]

      source

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        euclidean geometry is famously complete

        Nah.

        this doesn’t mean that “it’s impossible to create any consistent set of math statements that completely describes everything,”

        It says far less than that: “It’s impossible for a mathematical system containing the natural numbers to be both complete and consistent.”

        Reality has almost nothing to do with it.

        reality itself could be a complete system, understandable from both the outside and inside if only viewed at the right angle…

        This has been largely debunked.

        hilbert’s dream is not dead yet,

        I dunno what his dream was, but Hilbert’s program is very much dead.

        source
  • homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    It has to do with creating measuring devices out of what we can empirically derive, and building successive generations off of those. It’s fine for our local system but by the time you get intergalactic (or quantum) with it, flaws start to propagate themselves bigly.

    I can’t reveal more at this time or Big Math will get suspicious.

    source

    • Eq0@literature.cafe ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Big Math comes knocking: “you mean Big Physics?”

      source

      • homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        quoi? Oh désolé, je ne sais pas. Vous devez avoir le mauvais numéro.

        *sounds of fleeing*

        source