(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