Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400770 > unrolled thread

Re: Why the universe must be logically consistent and logically complete

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Why the universe must be logically consistent and logically complete Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-04 19:58 +0100
    Re: Why the universe must be logically consistent and logically complete Wilda Bolander <WdaaddoiBleld@WdaaddoiBleld.Wda> - 2016-12-04 20:27 +0000
      Re: Why the universe must be logically consistent and logically complete Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-05 00:06 +0100
    Re: Why the universe must be logically consistent and logically complete mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-04 13:15 -0800

#400770 — Re: Why the universe must be logically consistent and logically complete

Edgar Owen wrote:

> A computational universe must be logically consistent and logically
> complete.

No.

> If it weren't it would tear itself apart at the
> inconsistencies and pause at the incompletenesses and could not exist.

Incorrect.  Logic is (more or less) a human thing, and all our scientific 
understanding of the universe/multiverse are *models* of it, not the 
absolute truth.

> This is a basic tenant of the computational theory of reality I present

A “tenant” is a person.  I think you mean “_tenet_” (foundation, theorem) 
instead.

> in my book Universal Reality, The New Theory of Everything. […]

Yet another crackpot publication that has nothing to do with the topic of 
this newsgroup, the theories of _relativity_ (_not_ “reality”).

> Applying Godel's incompleteness theorem to the universe is incorrect. 

No.

> Godel's theorem applies to systems in which someone can arbitrarily 
> state a wff (well formed formula) in the system and then it may be 
> impossible to determine whether or not it can ever be reached (proven) 
> from the axioms.

No, it applies to *every* formal axiomatic system containing basic 
arithmetic instead.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems>

You have no clue what you are talking about.  Please go away.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#400788

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> in my book Universal Reality, The New Theory of Everything. […]
> 
> Yet another crackpot publication that has nothing to do with the topic
> of this newsgroup, the theories of _relativity_ (_not_ “reality”).

Not even wrong!

▬▬▬*ஜ۩۞ P L O N K ۞۩ஜ*▬▬▬

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400796

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Wilda Bolander"
(formerly, "Julian Alewine" etc.):

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> in my book Universal Reality, The New Theory of Everything. […]
>> 
>> Yet another crackpot publication that has nothing to do with the topic
>> of this newsgroup, the theories of _relativity_ (_not_ “reality”).
> 
> Not even wrong!
> 
> ▬▬▬*ஜ۩۞ P L O N K ۞۩ஜ*▬▬▬

Much to learn you have, young apprentice:

        _____________                 _____________
         `-._    ..::|                 `-._    ..::|       .
             `.  ..::|                     `.  ..::|      /|
              |  ..::|                      |  ..::|     /.|
              |  ..::|   _____              |  ..::|    / :|
    .--------.|  ..::|.-'  ..::-.---. .-----|  ..::|   / .:|
    | /\    .::. ..:.'       ..::`.  '      |  ..::|  / .::| /\
    |/  \    .::\../           ..::\        |  ..::| / ..::|/  \
.---'    '---..::bd        _    ..::b.._    |  ..::|/ ..---'    '---.
 `-.      .-' .::PI       (_)   ..::m   )   |       ..::`-.      .-'
   /      \  ..:/.q             ..::w  /   .|       .:'   /      \
  /_.-``-._\..:' ..\           ..::/  /   .:|       ''---/_.-``-._\
  ' |  ..:.`  |  ..:`.       ..::,'  /   .::|            ..:.     `
    |  ..:|   |  ..::|`-.__..::-':| /  .::' |  ..:::|'.   ..:\
    |  ..:J  ,'  ..:::.   ,'   ..::/ ..:'  ,'  ..::::. )   .::b
    | ..:/  /____..::::\ /____...:/ .:'   /____..:::::/   ..::P
    |.:,'                        /.:'                /  ..:::'
    |,'                         /.'                 / ..:-'
    '                           '                  /,-'
                                                  '
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400790

W dniu niedziela, 4 grudnia 2016 19:58:47 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:

> 
> No, it applies to *every* formal axiomatic system containing basic 
> arithmetic instead.

But you don't believe Godel theorems to be the objective,
unconditional truth (in opposition to all other known 
mathematical theorems) - do you, poor idiot?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web