(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.11.7.37NZT, eastern Godzone time)
help Avery help.
How did I get here?
I have just been told “it’s
all I need to know and all there is to know”
It’s only a controlled variable which
I have fabricated, to match some reference which I too have fabricated.
It’s all just a collective
fabrication. But I seem happy in it, or am I.
Kind regards
Gavin
(Avery Andrews 2011.7.11 17.19 Eastern
Oz DST)
a
statement P which states “there is no proof of P”. If P is true,
there is no proof of it. If P is false, there is a proof that P is true,
which is a contradiction. Therefore it cannot be determined within the
system whether P is true.
Only a
problem for 20th century megalomaniacs who expect there to be systems in which
everything true can be proved (an aspiration people once had for
axiomatizations of arithmetic). Once you have suitably downgraded your
aspirations, it just means that for any axiomatic system of sufficient richness
(basically enough to construct the ‘I can’t be proved’ sentence) there are true
things that can’t be proved.
(Gavin
Ritz 2011.07.11.17.26NZT)
In some
discussion with Bill he says that language is a perceptual controlled variable. I think
I understand this. (Can’t be sure I do).
If this
is the case, language is connected to theory and mathematics via logic.
Language is made up of three types of logic, Imperatives, Declaratives and
Interrogatives. If language is made up of logic then logic is also a
controlled variable and so then by implication is mathematics. Basically all
our knowledge then by implication is a controlled variable.
Godel
then points out that the following statement is a part of the system: a
statement P which states “there is no proof of P”. If P is true,
there is no proof of it. If P is false, there is a proof that P is true, which
is a contradiction. Therefore it cannot be determined within the system whether
P is true.
Oh well,
just to confuse the heck out of myself.
Regards
Gavin