Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

preview_player
Показать описание

Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

Unfortunately, that is not how Gödel’s incompleteness theorems work. The problem will inevitably apply to all mathematical and/ or logical models regardless if you choose to swap assumptions. The Gödel axiom of unprovability is automatically present in any system that can speak about itself. Therefore, Gödel is always relevant.

josueguedes
Автор

Gödel proved that if mathematics is consistent; then it is not provable that it is consistent.

mathedguy
Автор

Godel doesn't say where the incompleteness is. So yes it applies to Physics but that doesn't mean you can't resolve to a TOE as we would understand it. It just means there will be deep edge cases you can't quite handle.

tronpauli
Автор

Subtitles are terrible! Girdle? No Gödel.

FreeApophis
Автор

I doubt it. Goedels incompleteness theorem has many examples that have practical relevance...like parallel postulate and noneuclidean geometry. We can always ask questions that cannot be answered within the axiomatic system or model we develop...in other words we need to accept new axioms...or not and explore from there. Reductionism may have a limit, but whether reductionism fits are ultimate understanding of the universe is itself up for question. There are emergent properties that reductionism may never be compatible with, and it's explanatory power may then have limits. My feeling is that this will all relate to discrete information, and our reductionist understanding of the world...while very useful for human goals...may be more of a convenience...and possible trap...than reflecting truth. Our ability to reason and logic may create our brain as a way to explain ourselves rather than the other way around. This may bring us new powers and abilities, but that might only be because we have a new representation of what was there already rather than being the only possible explanation. Einstein might be right that a mouse cannot create THE universe as we understand it...but it might be sufficient to create ITS universe. This process may have no real end, even if as individuals it always has a dead end for our consciousness so far. Also we must come to terms with some of the dark reasons we search for such representations in the first place ..and that is to exploit our environment and each other. Science may in the end be the best friend to fascism. There may be a point where we don't want to know any more or realize the dangers to our existence if we do. We're already pretty close to that with nukes...what else is there? Our existence may be dependent upon our ignorance.

zackbarkley
Автор

When Curt posted his question Greene for a second looked like a deer in headlights. The horror! the horror! the horror! of thinking outside of mathematics.

Andre-Linoge
Автор

This guy hasn't benefited humanity in the least.
Continuously writes nonsense books to reap in $$$

jasonfusaroDragonFly
Автор

I dont think godels theorem applyes to physcs. About mathimatical formal systems that created by humans we will allways find that incomplete exploit with which we could evolve those system. But with reality that physics operate there could be only two options its finite which means its complete, or its infinite which means its cant be complete with or whithout any godels theorem. And we cant know, at least for now, finite or infinite reality is.

whfsyv
Автор

Because physics, well science in general, relies on the scientific method, there are even more serious limitations than Goedels incompleteness theorem. Plus, there are practical and ethical limitations to what can be tested. Just for example, I have a theory about what happens if I blow up the universe, including any trace of physics theory. My theory is that another universe will spawn and intelligence will evolve to discover physical laws until they reach a similar self-referencing, ultimate question. Is it possible to test this theory? Should it ever be tested?

shawngay
Автор

Physics isn't math. A physicist says, "nature works according to the standard model". But that's not a conjecture -- it makes no sense to "prove" it.

davidespinosa
Автор

Don't think that physics ever touched that incomplete class of statements, in this respect Gödel's theorem is not related to the incompletness of phyisical theories.

Bobbel