
Greetings! 
General Science and Nature General discussions on all aspects of science and nature. 

Thread Tools  Rate Thread  Display Modes 
#1




Godels theorem shown to be invalid ie illegitimate
The Australian philosopher has shown Godels incompletness theorem is invalid for 6 reasons
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...phy/GODEL5.pdf . Quote:
Godels syntactic proof reads formally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...inal_statement Quote:
we get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...teness_theorem Quote:
there are true statements which cant be proven now the cambridge expert on godel Peter smith admits godel did not have a theory of what makes a math statement true http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...phy/GODEL5.pdf thus as dean says Quote:

Sponsored Links 
#2




Hawking and Penrose recognize Godel. But who the hell is nightdreamer? Where can I find your analysis in the Physical Review or some other peerreviewed publication like Scientific American? Do you have any idea how many people that preceed you that have attempted to trash Godel (and thereby Alan Turing) attempting to have their names forever inscribed in fame by doing so? I think I will pass on your attempt without further proof you are not simply on drugs.

#3




You find people attempting to trash Godel by any and all means available simply because if you extend what Godel proved to the human mind you find that the human mind cannot be operating by any such logic (Penrose Shadows of the Mind). The further extension of that is that the AI nuts (which nightdreamer is likely a member) cannot come to grips with the fact that the mind is not simply a BooleanTuring machine. Machines never will be 'smarter than us'. It puts big fat wrinkle in the poor AI nut's reality. If you can get rid of Godel's Incompletness theorem, you can pave the way for the idea that someday humans will create androids as smart or smarter than humans. But Godel did this long before the words AI (Artificial Intelligence) were even around and no one ever had ever heard words like algorithm and if there was anyone around that knew what a computer program even was, it was likely someone in military intelligence. What Godel proved was it is not possible even in principle to create a set of logical rules (algorithm as per Hilbert's challange) that could be used to explain all of mathematics. Godel showed by contradiction that not only could this never be done but even arithmetic could not be shown to be logically both complete and consistent and therefore anything in mathematics more complex could not be either. It was a major turning point in the history of mathematics. Just like every birdbrain would like to say "Einstein was wrong" view nightdreamer. Big talk but whoever nightdreamer is I don't put him on any sort of par with Hawking and Penrose. I did Godel's proof myself and it is quite convincing when viewed in the proper context. Godel was at the Advanced Institute at the same time as Einstein at Princeton University and they used to walk home together after work and exchange ideas. On a par with Godel in mathematics was the discovery of nonEuclidean geometry.

#4




there is no formula that can program all the possible mathematical formulae
there is no computer program that can debug all computer programs there is no computer program that can CREATE any computer program ... I believe Godel to be correct because math is quantitative and always needs to be qualified by a human (conscious) context math without language and the qualitative ability to apply it to the world will never be able to enscribe the complete world ... its astonishing that herr Dubbeld can understand the subtle complexity of this, and yet like someone on his first day at phil101 commits the ad hominem argument to try and attack the character of nightdreamer I can only conclude the herr Dubbeld, whilst giving a seemingly logically correct answer, understands the issue less than nightdreamer does, whose answer I disagree with, but whose mind seems more capable of being open to reason. Herr Dubbeld is a mere parrot. Godels answer is not based on completely on logic, its simply based on observing the reality of what math can and cannot do math is not creative, its an unchangeable mechanism. a creative mind can abstract the mechanism and apply it in any way that logically fits the mechanism the mind is visionary, imaginative, creative math is static like Mike
__________________
The Principles of Flight (in full) http://www.poseidons.net/flight/Principlesofflight.htm 
#5




fact is godel proof is about there being true mathematical statements which cant be proven
as colin leslie dean has shown godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true thus his theorem is meaningless babal ie lets replace true by GIBBLE in the formulation Quote:

#6




you say
Quote:
once most leading thinkers regarded gallelio as wrong you say Quote:
but as colin leslie dean has shown the proof is based on an axiom that is regarded as illegitament even by russell himself who abandoned it in his 2 ed of PM the very edition godel used ramsey even says AR should be dropped from mathematics so his theorem for all its logic is illegitament also even if faultles in its logic the theorem is meaningless nonsense as godel cant tell us what makes a maths statement true lets replace true by GIBBLE in the formulation Quote: Quote:

Bookmarks 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  Rate This Thread 


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Godels incompleteness theorem shown to be invalid  nightdreamer  General Science and Nature  3  09102008 08:46 AM 
Arguments why Godels incompleteness theorem is invalid  nightdreamer  General Philosophy  12  07202008 05:52 PM 
Godel uses impredicative statements which make his incompleteness theorem invalid  nightdreamer  General Philosophy  2  10312007 09:48 PM 
2nd paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that makes invalid  nightdreamer  General Philosophy  3  10212007 08:27 PM 
Godels incompleteness theorem ends in absurdity meaninglessness  nightdreamer  General Philosophy  2  09132007 01:49 PM 