From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>

Date: Fri May 11 2007 - 19:13:35 EDT

Date: Fri May 11 2007 - 19:13:35 EDT

I can understand why you have grown tired of the discussion, I found

it to be starting to be lacking in depth as well.

Especially now that you are making just plain silly assertions: I am

not sure why you suggest that I am defending Dawkins' atheism so I

will consider it an unfortunate comment and let it rest as such since

it is so obviously wrong.

I was addressing your use of the Godel theorem to support your ideas

about God. As I have shown Godel's incompleteness theorems have little

to do with whether or not something is true but whether or not given a

particular limited system, such truths can be proven. Does physics

needs logic or mathematics? I doubt it. Logic and mathematics are our

ways to understand, model and capture our knowledge. Remember that

Godel's theorem is only about proving, with the system of choice, the

truth of certain propositions. Does it matter to our laws of physics

of something can be proven to be true using formal axiomatic

mathematics? Perhaps my viewpoint of physics is too simplistic, after

all it has been quite a while since I took my college physics classes,

and yet, I fail to see how our inability to prove something to be

true, is relevant to physics? It may limit our knowledge about

physics, but it does not make such a proposition true or false, just

unprovable. And I am not even going to add the concept of QM to deal

with the concept of consistency here.

<quote>All that it says is that the whole set of arithmetical truths

cannot be listed, one by one, by a Turing machine." Equivalently,

there is no algorithm which can decide the truth of all arithmetical

propositions. And that is all</quote>

Am I truly not comprehending this issues? I wonder. I appreciate your

time and effort in discussing your viewpoints on these matters.

On 5/11/07, philtill@aol.com <philtill@aol.com> wrote:

*>
*

*> Pim,
*

*> I have grown very tired of this discussion, Pim. You seem to want to be an
*

*> authority on every topic necessary to defend Dawkins' atheism, no matter
*

*> what the extreme, but I get the sense that you are trying to argue well
*

*> beyond your prior experience and so your responses don't reflect a depth of
*

*> thought and aren't producing a very interesting discussion. If you were
*

*> interested in exploring these thoughts with me as a fellow traveler,
*

*> stretching ourselves together beyond our prior experience, rather than
*

*> merely trying to **defeat** me out of your zeal for Dawkins, then that would
*

*> be a different matter.
*

*>
*

*> God bless,
*

*> Phil
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> -----Original Message-----
*

*> From: pvm.pandas@gmail.com
*

*> To: philtill@aol.com
*

*> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
*

*> Sent: Fri, 11 May 2007 12:29 PM
*

*> Subject: Re: [asa] Godel's theorem [Was: Re: Dawkins, religion, and
*

*> children]
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> As to 2. you claim that materialists claim that nature self exists,
*

*> but their definition of self existence is very different from your
*

*> definition. Your use of a mathematical argument fails as I have
*

*> pointed out because it says nothing about self existence.
*

*> Mathematics serve to capture physics in a format suitable for our
*

*> consumption, however nature can exist quite well without the axioms of
*

*> mathematics.
*

*>
*

*> It seems to me that your use of Godel is incorrect when it comes to
*

*> self existence. As far as axioms are concerned, the fact that Godel
*

*> only applies to axioms has little relevance on reducibility.
*

*>
*

*> Let me repeat an earlier quote I provided
*

*>
*

*> <quote>Now, as to science, this ignores in the first place that
*

*> Gödel's theorem applies to deduction from axioms, a useful and
*

*> important sort of reasoning, but one so far from being our only source
*

*> of knowledge it's not even funny. It's not even a very common mode of
*

*> reasoning in the sciences, though there are axiomatic formulations of
*

*> some parts of physics. Even within this comparatively small circle, we
*

*> have at most established that there are some propositions about
*

*> numbers which we can't prove formally. As Hintikka says, "Gödel's
*

*> incompleteness result does not touch directly on the most important
*

*> sense of completeness and incompleteness, namely, descriptive
*

*> completeness and incompleteness," the sense in which an axiom systems
*

*> describes a given field. In particular, the result "casts absolutely
*

*> no shadow on the notion of truth</quote>
*

*>
*

*> In other words, even if we were to limit ourself to an axiomatic
*

*> system, the fact that within this system there are propositions we
*

*> cannot prove to be true, is only relevant to our ability to prove
*

*> something to be true, not the truth of the proposition itself. In
*

*> fact, using another system with different axioms, the truth of such
*

*> propositions can be proven as well.
*

*>
*

*> You said: Well, Godel tells us about the mathematics; he tells us that
*

*> it cannot be reduced to any countable set of axioms if it contains
*

*> arithmetic.
*

*>
*

*> It seems to me that your interpretation of Godel is incorrect. Have
*

*> you heard of Godel's completeness theorem? What Godel says is that not
*

*> every proposition can be proven to be true within such a system.
*

*>
*

*> <quote wikipedia>t states, in its most familiar form, that in
*

*> first-order predicate calculus every logically valid formula is
*

*> provable.
*

*>
*

*> The word "provable" above means that there is a formal deduction of
*

*> the formula. Such a deduction is a finite list of steps in which each
*

*> step either invokes an axiom or is obtained from previous steps by a
*

*> basic inference rule. Given such a deduction, the correctness of each
*

*> of its steps can be checked algorithmically (by a computer, for
*

*> example, or by hand).</quote>
*

*>
*

*> Of course, mathematics is just a limited form of how we try to
*

*> understand the world around us. At most Godel has shown that using
*

*> mathematics alone we may be unable to capture all truths. Many of
*

*> those truths may have little relevance to physics anyway.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> On 5/10/07, philtill@aol.com <philtill@aol.com> wrote:
*

*> >
*

*> > Pim,
*

*> >
*

*> > Answering your two statements, taking the more interesting (2nd) one
*

*> first:
*

*> >
*

*> > 2. I'm not assuming that nature must be able to self-exist, because
*

*> > personally I believe that it is God who self-exists, not nature. But it
*

*> is
*

*> > the materialists who believe that nature self-exists, and so to examine
*

*> > their belief I am trying to see if nature is the kind of thing that
*

*> really
*

*> > can self-exist. To address this I am introducing an argument from
*

*> > mathematics. Mathematics does not exist by itself like an equation
*

*> floating
*

*> > in a vacuum. It is not an entity in its own right: it must be written
*

*> onto
*

*> > something. It must be written explicitly in a Mind that is the source of
*

*> > all logic and mathematics, or it must be written implicitly on the fabric
*

*> of
*

*> > some physics that displays the patterns of mathematics. Theists believe
*

*> it
*

*> > is both; materialists believe it is only the latter. If it is only the
*

*> > latter, and if we believe that the physics emerged from a simpler state,
*

*> > then we can rightly discuss that si mpler state in its relationship to
*

*> its
*

*> > own implicit mathematics to see how far back we can reduce it. If we can
*

*> > reduce physics all the way back to an origin where it is supremely
*

*> simple,
*

*> > then the mathematics written implicitly onto that physics at its origin
*

*> must
*

*> > also have been supremely simple. Well, Godel tells us about the
*

*> > mathematics; he tells us that it cannot be reduced to any countable set
*

*> of
*

*> > axioms if it contains arithmetic. Therefore, remembering that mathematics
*

*> > cannot float in a vacuum, if the mathematics have always and only been
*

*> > written on physics then the physics cannot be reducible to a state that
*

*> > supports no more than a countable set of axioms. It must have been
*

*> complex
*

*> > enough to have the irreducible mathematics written on it. This has
*

*> > implications for its ability to self-exist. That was the thrust of the
*

*> > argument. I was not claiming that nature self-exists, but trying to argue
*

*> > against that belief.
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*> > 1. I didn't assume nature must be axiomatic. I repeatedly said that one
*

*> > alternative is that nature cannot be reduced to axioms. I am happy with
*

*> > that alternative because it supports my belief that nature or whatever
*

*> lies
*

*> > behind it cannot be simple in the reductionist sense.
*

*> >
*

*> > God bless,
*

*> > Phil
*

*> >
*

*> > -----Original Message-----
*

*> > From: pvm.pandas@gmail.com
*

*> > To: philtill@aol.com
*

*> > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
*

*> > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2007 12:41 PM
*

*> > Subject: Re: [asa] Godel's theorem [Was: Re: Dawkins, religion, and
*

*> > children]
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*> > Your argument is based on several assumptions which I believe have
*

*> > made it fail to support your conclusion
*

*> >
*

*> > First of all consistency versus completeness. What if nature has given
*

*> > up consistency (Quantum Mechanics)
*

*> >
*

*> > But that is but a minor detail, the main problems with your argument
*

*> > are as follows
*

*> >
*

*> > 1. You assume that nature must be axiomatic
*

*> > 2. You assume that nature must be able to self-determine or self
*

*> > exist. I fail to see why this is true or even relevant to the
*

*> > argument. Within a particular system of axioms, one cannot prove that
*

*> > all is true. But why should nature care about mathematical proofs of
*

*> > truth? And if it were to matter, it can find another system which can
*

*> > be used to explain or determine the truth.
*

*> >
*

*> > As for mathematicians critiquing your argument. I have seen various
*

*> > people make very similar assertions about Godel's incompleteness
*

*> > theorem and have found similarly various rebuttals to such.
*

*> > Not being a mathematician myself, I found it pretty trivial to find
*

*> > the weaknesses in your claims which is the need for nature to be able
*

*> > to self determine. However I propose that Godel's theorem says nothing
*

*> > about such.
*

*> >
*

*> > On 5/9/07, philtill@aol.com <philtill@aol.com> wrote:
*

*> > >
*

*> > > Hi Pim,
*

*> > >
*

*> > > you said,
*

*> > >
*

*> > > > As far as completeness and consistent, the two may indeed may be
*

*> > > > sacrificed, one for the other. In most cases we abandon completeness
*

*> > > > for consistency, but what if we were to abandon consistency for
*

*> > > > completeness?
*

*> > >
*

*> > > I'm sorry to have to disagree but this is not correct. You are mixing
*

*> > > Godel's first and second theorems. Please research it and you'll find
*

*> > out.
*

*> > >
*

*> > > Also, I am not questioning that consistent and complete systems may
*

*> > exist,
*

*> > > or that the arithmetic inherent in nature is indeed such a system. I am
*

*> > > also not questioning the ability of scientists to develop laws of
*

*> > physics,
*

*> > > or mankind's ability to do logic and discover truth.
*

*> > >
*

*> > > What I am questioning is **nature's** ability to self-determine its own
*

*> > > truth, and therefore to self-exist. If we conceive of nature as being
*

*> > > ultimately simple, being nothing but one (or a few) mindless phenomena
*

*> > that
*

*> > > can be described as axiomatic laws executing repeatedly to bring forth
*

*> > all
*

*> > > the appearance of complexity in physics, then it may not strain us as
*

*> > hard
*

*> > > to imagine the system self-existing. But since a few simple axiomatic
*

*> > laws
*

*> > > are incapable of describing a complete and consistent arithmetical
*

*> > physics,
*

*> > > then we must concede that nature in its essence is not simple. Indeed,
*

*> > the
*

*> > > axioms at the essence of nature must be uncountably infinite, or rather
*

*> > > nature must not be reducible to axioms at all. But then it would be
*

*> truly
*

*> > > amazing to think that such a complete and consistent nature self-exists
*

*> > > rather than evolving slowly from a simpler state.
*

*> > >
*

*> > > While mathematicians have criticized the various misapplications of
*

*> > Godel's
*

*> > > theorem, I have never run across anybody criticizing this particular
*

*> take
*

*> > on
*

*> > > it.
*

*> >
*

*> > ________________________________
*

*> > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
*

*> from
*

*> > AOL at AOL.com.
*

*> >
*

*>
*

*> ________________________________
*

*> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
*

*> AOL at AOL.com.
*

*>
*

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

Received on Fri May 11 19:14:00 2007

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Fri May 11 2007 - 19:14:01 EDT
*