LoL! Bob, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS BELIEVES! The "obvious conclusion from Goedel's work is that LOGIC IS A FAILURE". He said it exactly in these words: plain as day. It doesn't get any clearer.
He said "Goedel is the greatest logician of all time, so logicians want to claim him; but logicians do not want non-logicians to talk about Goedel's work, because the obvious conclusion is..." You are assuming that he believes "obvious" = "true"; but he devotes his life to working out things which are far from obvious (in the context, "obvious" means "what someone not acquainted with the subject would immediately conclude"). I summarized his work for you; but if you do not trust anything I say, it would not be hard for you to Google "Chaitin" and look for yourself at what he does.
Chaitin does not "devote his life" to philosophy and logic itself. He is a computer scientist...
who studies the logical questions around the topic of, "Under what conditions can a computer program work (that is, finally come up with an answer) and under what conditions can a computer program never work (that is, it will inevitably dither forever and never HALT in the Turing sense)?" This is the analogue in the field of computational mathematics of the Goedel incompleteness issue; your position "logic is a total failure" would translate in this field to "computer programs never
give correct answers" and you should know better than that. Of course we know that "computer programs are often
hopelessly inadequate to solve a problem" and Turing showed worse, that sometimes we can't even find out
whether or not a computer program is going to be able to solve a problem.
as well and most likely a functionalist who does not like to waste time with defending hopeless theoretical systems, like you.
Instead of hypothesizing in a vacuum about what he "most likely" does, why don't you try looking at what he actually
does? And how could you expect that he would work as a "functionalist" if, as you assert, he believes that no computer programs could ever function?
You are directly contradicting the BBC documentary, as in it Godel was not even able to show how a single solution is possible, let alone "many".
You don't understand what "solution" he was looking for. As I have tried to explain many times, he was not asking whether a solution to Zeno's Paradox exists: we got past that a thousand years ago; the Continuum is such a solution. He was trying to prove the uniqueness
of the Continuum as a solution: Cantor conjectured that the only possible
move up from the Pythagorean space was to the Continuum. Goedel was trying to prove, therefore, that the Continuum was necessary
in this sense; and of course he failed to prove it, because it isn't true. He and a colleague eventually succeeded in proving the opposite of what he had set out to show.
I don't see anyone besides you critiquing the documentary on these grounds.
The hallucinatory sequence in which Goedel sees his fingers melting, etc. is just fantasy and hype, I'm sorry. After this implication that it was the frustrating mathematical work that drove him to a rest-home, the documentary mentions, as if it was merely coincidental, oh by the way, this was also while Hitler was taking over Germany. Now this was what was going on in Goedel's life in 1934, aside from the continuum work: Einstein and other friends were trying to get him to flee Germany for the US, and he was studying the US Constitution. Franzel (whom I cited for you above) is of the opinion that "Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem just does not apply to systems like the Bible or the US Constitution" (like Chaitin, he thinks that non-logicians looking at Goedel's results tend to draw "obvious" implications which really aren't there). However, Goedel did
think that systems like the US Constitution are also subject to the constraint that there must be either some inconsistency, or some incompleteness, and if he was going to trust his life to the US, he wanted to know which: and concluded that the US suffered from inconsistency, and could morph into a fascist dictatorship just as bad as Nazi Germany. Do YOU think he was being "crazy" to worry about such a thing?
The sources I provided put those quotations in context for me.
You don't understand what your sources are saying.
I don't have to have a graduate degree in mathematics to trust the BBC over YOU.
You would need some education in mathematics to understand
I believe that you are a dishonest and/or delusional person bob. I also highly doubt that you understand the field of mathematics as much as you claim.
Not much point in continued dialogue, then.
For all I know you're even lying about not having seen the documentary.
I have gotten through some segments by now. It is better than your summary led me to expect, although I still have some disagreements with it.
Exactly. You're a nobody bob, deal with it.
I'm somebody. I have no problems with dealing.
You are also apparently a plagiarist, who is ripping of God.
I am in the "chain of transmission" now, in the same way that names like "al-Bukhari" etc. will continue to be cited as long as anyone studies hadith
. The JPS Tanakh, 1999 edition, mentions me on p. xii for the same reason that they mention ben-Asher (renowned medieval "Masorete" who produced some very clean manuscripts) and Kittel (early editor of scholarly printed editions): all on-line Tanakhs are based on the Michigan file, and printed editions now depend on computer assist, so academic courtesy requires that my name be there.
Hypocricy, plain and simple. You cite wiki when you think it supports your point of view, but when it clearly contradicts you, you're like "I don't need wiki", LoLz
You are speaking to me as if I had never heard of Cantor, Goedel, and Turing before you turned me on to them. I know a great deal about them, but you won't hear it from me-- and now you won't look at any other sources either.
As if I'm to believe you know "most" mathematicians in the field?
A sufficient sample.
And yes, I do deny causality, but since you don't go ahead and bring your evidence.
If you deny causality, then we are agreed that studying foundational mathematics did not "cause" the mental problems of Cantor, Goedel, and Turing. The burden of proof would be on anyone who claims causality to bring forward evidence; it is never on the negative side.
As if the West has been avoiding power politics when dealing with the rest of the world?
Spengler's specific prescriptions were for particular types of "power politics": structure the government in authoritarian, rather than democratic, style; preserve ethnic purity, rather than tolerating other cultures; command the economy, rather than letting markets operate. He believed that otherwise "civilization" (the preservation of a sufficient control over violence and poverty) could not continue. He could not possibly have been more mistaken.
Here is a BBC documentary full of facts
that you might enjoy.
I didn't ask you to abandon the thread and months later start whinning about it.
I was preventing from posting for weeks, during which you also had difficulties posting. I let it die. The subject of whether others had had difficulties posting came up, and I mentioned my experience. The emotionalism since then has been entirely on your side.
Yea, and I wonder who the audience will take on their word, you or the BBC.
Most people who watch the BBC documentary will find the subject matter difficult to understand, and if they want to know what is actually going on, they might appreciate a summary from someone who does understand it.
#1: Regarding Chaitin's quote he was talking about logicians themselves, who refuse to accept the "obvious" conclusions of Godel's work, not the laymen (as you claim).
You are mistaken, again.
#2: The sentence "I don't have a low opinion of you" that was a typo. The original sentence was "I don't have a high opinion of you" which I wanted to change to "I have a low opinion of you", but forgot to take out the "don't"
I managed to figure that out for myself, just as I managed to figure out that you are making "two" clarifications, not "too" clarifications. But thanks for your concern: I know you are always worried that I am not going to understand you thoroughly.