Hi. Can someone answer those questions for me, please:1. Does Gödel’s theorem limit our understanding of the universe?2. Does it limit our ability to formulate a coherent system of moral values?>pic unrelated: poll asks whether people agree with throwing eggs at politicians or not. 80% doesnt agree
>>17061595The way you phrase your question is too ambiguous.Are you asking if knowledge of the theory is like some sort of mind virus where having that knowledge limits your creativity, or are you asking if the facts of reality described by that theory (which would still exist even if nobody ever noticed and described them) limit our understanding?I assume it's the latter because it makes more sense. My answer would be that while yes, it does limit our understanding in a literal sense, it doesn't limit our understanding in a practical sense because incompleteness only applies to specific models, so if you need to answer a specific question you can just construct a new model/system that's capable of answering that question. As for moral values, you don't even really need logic at all to construct a moral system. Morals are fundamentally arbitrary. Just having a big list of divine rules is just as good as a complicated rule utilitarian setup. Hell, you could have a moral system that doesn't even require any thought or logic at all, like "everything is always evil and amoral no matter what". That's a coherent, consistent system that requires zero thought.
1. No2. No
>>17061595Could there be a universe in which Godel's theorem doesn't exist? I think not.
>>17061604All the ones without arithmetic.With or without the axiom of choice, btw.
>>17061596You sound young and atheistic, bro. I don’t think any sort of rules can be categorized as „subjective morality”. Or at least not in a serious manner. Wait, actually you might be right, but then we can align all subjective moralities in an order based on how precise and accurate they are. The apex morality in that order will be something resembling a mathematical description of the Universe, and that particular description is like a formal system in which Gödel’s theorem applies. That’s the logic behind my questions. But maybe I don’t get the principles right.
>>17061726Your subjective morality assumption does not require an ordering of any resulting systems of such. Any two subjective morality systems can be completely incommensurable.Gödel would tell you that himself if you heard his voice in your head, which he did.
>>17061735It does require an ordering if you are going to approach it pragmatically, which you should do by definition, because morality is irrelevant „outside of the game of life”. Do you live in the same Universe as myself? Well… there we go.
>>17061595>1. Does Gödel’s theorem limit our understanding of the universe?No, it's too meta.>2. Does it limit our ability to formulate a coherent system of moral values?No. Formulating coherent systems of moral values is trivial. The problem is that moral systems have nothing to do with reality.
>>17061596>Morals are fundamentally arbitrary.What you actually said there is: "I can't even begin to comprehend morality". If you actually mean that, you're subhuman.
>>17061595We don't understand the universe.We have good models for it.
>>170615951. It proved empiricism right, and rationalism wrong. Which is what all sane people knew anyway, and insane people deny anyway. 2. no
>>17061778>It proved empiricism rightTotal delusion and not even a coherent one.
>>17061782It implies that rationalists are wrong in rejecting common sense truths simply because they haven't been formally proven, as some true statements are simply impossible to prove.It also means that rationalism can't actually deliver its promise of absolute certainty, as such a system can't exist.
>>17061860>rejecting common sense truths simply because they haven't been formally provenWhat does that have to do with rationalism? Also how does rationalism being retarded stop empiricism being 50 times as retarded?>some true statements are simply impossible to proveEmpiricism can't prove them, either. And I don't recall rationalists claiming they can prove everything that is true.
>>17061778I thought rationalism contains empiricism
>>17061763No such ordering need or does exist.Poof.
>>170617701. Is there such a thing as „too meta” in the context of a theory of everything? I wouldn’t say so. 2. …You have nothing to do with reality!
Bump
>>17062133No. They are generally opposed frameworks.Rationalism is basically the stance that one's perceptions are inherently untrustworthy and instead relies on constructing logical models through first principles and deduction.Empiricism basically says sensation is the only thing that matters. Anything useful about the world can only be derived through observation or inferred through induction based on those observations.
>>17062195>Is there such a thing as „too meta”Yeah, like when the gotchas are purely abstract statements about your chosen way of describing something, not about what you're actually describing.>You have nothing to do with reality!Not an argument. Loads of moral systems are internally consistent. The problem is that you can reductio ad absurdum every single one of them just by following a system to its logical conclusion and comparing against how a sane human would act.
>>17064589>The problem is that you can reductio ad absurdum every single one of them just by following a system to its logical conclusion and comparing against how a sane human would act.This, by the way, is because moral systems are supposed to be prescriptive, but you can't actually decide between them without treating them as descriptive, at which point they inevitably fail to describe human moral intuitions.
>>170645891. I re-read it 5 times and didn’t get it. Sorry. 2. Did you just say only sane humans are moral? That would make some sense.
>>17061595nono
>>17064900>didn’t get itIf you have a Theory of Everything and you formalize it into a consistent system that accommodates Gödel coding, it has a Gödel sentence you can use to prove incompleteness. But the Gödel sentence basically says: "this statement cannot be proven in the system". So ok, you CAN'T prove that statement. But that's not an actual statement about the universe, it's talking about your system. You can generate as many unprovable statements as you like out of the Gödel sentence, but they're all gonna be like that.>Did you just say only sane humans are moral?No, I said only insane people actually follow their moral system when it leads to absurd conclusions. Normal people will follow their intuition if it comes to that, then rationalize it.
>>170649301. Thanks for explaining. But is there any other way of summing up a theory of everything than in a consistent formal system? 2. Yeah, but following one’s intuition can be a part of a moral system, since we already know we live in an uncertain environment. I see no problem here.
>>17065138>But is there any other way of summing up a theory of everything than in a consistent formal system?You can have a consistent formal system that Gödel coding doesn't work for. Then the argument doesn't even apply. Also, who said a formal system needs to be consistent? An inconsistent system is useless under classical logic because it lets you prove anything, but not under paraconsistent logic.>following one’s intuition can be a part of a moral systemBut then it's not an axiomatic system. Or at least the axioms aren't directly telling you how to behave.
>>17065138>is there any other way of summing up a theory of everything than in a consistent formal system?sure, moral absolutism is one such systemyou simply start with a falsehood or contradiction and then you can derive anything you want
>>17065195You don't understand the terms you're using nor the references you're making.
>>17065177Ok, I suppose if I say that morality can allow improvisation then the theory of everything (which contains morality) should also allow improvisation, therefore it will be in the best case scenario, probabilistic.
>>17065268And therefore Gödel’s theorem doesn’t apply to it?
