4 ms·

> The danger with math is that it can prove its own truths based on its own internal rules... Actually, there's a theorem about that ;) Godel's Incompleteness

by Tyr42 10y ago

> The danger with math is that it can prove its own truths based on its own internal rules... Actually, there's a theorem about that ;) Godel's Incompleteness theorem. I would describe the problem more like: The new model matches the old model in almost everything (because we've observed a lot). But the math works out quite nicely if itty bitty particles behave this way when exploded at super high temperatures. We have a hard time watching those particles explode, so it's not really tested. Either way it works out, it's not really going to matter for anyone who doesn't explode tiny particles.

Myrmornis 10y ago
Given that GP was discussing publicly, on a technical internet forum, the relationship between mathematical provability and truth/existence, don't you think it likely that GP was aware of Gödel's Incompleteness theorem? My concern is that the "actually", and the smiley face, seems, to me, very patronizing. I really don't mean to be attacking you for a small point of etiquette, and I also acknowledge that the main purpose of this thread (the nature of reality) is a bit more important, but I do make this point sincerely. This is something I find a real problem when discussing things with software engineers. I personally hate the feeling of being patronized in public, or of someone replying in public with the implication that I was not aware of something which I am perfectly well aware of. I'm not claiming that the GP is an expert on the Incompleteness Theorem, and I'm certainly not, but that "actually", and the smiley, sound and look awful. We should assume that others are competent and knowledgable on the subjects they talk about until given evidence to the contrary.
Cybiote 10y ago
I believe you've misconstrued d13's intended meaning. In short, what they said is something can be mathematically consistent without being physically realistic. GIT is not really pertinent here.
- throwwit 10y ago
  Gabriel's Horn is probably more appropriate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel's_Horn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel's_Horn

by Tyr42 10y ago

Myrmornis 10y ago

Given that GP was discussing publicly, on a technical internet forum, the relationship between mathematical provability and truth/existence, don't you think it likely that GP was aware of Gödel's Incompleteness theorem? My concern is that the "actually", and the smiley face, seems, to me, very patronizing. I really don't mean to be attacking you for a small point of etiquette, and I also acknowledge that the main purpose of this thread (the nature of reality) is a bit more important, but I do make this point sincerely. This is something I find a real problem when discussing things with software engineers. I personally hate the feeling of being patronized in public, or of someone replying in public with the implication that I was not aware of something which I am perfectly well aware of. I'm not claiming that the GP is an expert on the Incompleteness Theorem, and I'm certainly not, but that "actually", and the smiley, sound and look awful. We should assume that others are competent and knowledgable on the subjects they talk about until given evidence to the contrary.

Cybiote 10y ago

I believe you've misconstrued d13's intended meaning. In short, what they said is something can be mathematically consistent without being physically realistic. GIT is not really pertinent here.

throwwit 10y ago
Gabriel's Horn is probably more appropriate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel's_Horn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel's_Horn