3 ms·
I wish more engineers would look into mathematical constructions of systems. Take something like Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and apply it to your own though
by alextheparrot 6y ago
I wish more engineers would look into mathematical constructions of systems. Take something like Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and apply it to your own thought process - it shows that it is fallible. The recognition that you can be wrong, and that you might not be able to see how you are wrong, to me provokes a careful, thoughtful scepticism of self.
We still need to face reality, so the sceptic can’t take over the asylum, but we shouldn’t act as if the patients monopolise faulty logic. Just the act of listening and trying to really understand what is being communicated, informationally but also emotionally, is also a view we get of ourselves from outside our local system.
Empathy is a lot like that. Understanding that others have had different circumstances, which led them to different thought processes, which we should try to understand and validate. There’s richness to be found in those differences as well. Deep understanding of another allows directness, vulnerability, and passion to shine phosphorescent.
- Tainnor 6y agoI'm not sure Gödel's incompleteness theorems have anything to do with this. After all, they don't show that any system of reasoning is inconsistent - just that it can't prove its own consistency and that there are statements that can be neither true nor false. Even then, it only applies when your system is able to express arithmetic - for basic syllogisms (like "all men are mortal. socrates is a man. therefore socrates is mortal.") this doesn't apply, as far as I understand.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoAlso, the field of formal methods exists, and is successfully used to develop ultra-low-defect software. The Incompleteness Theorem doesn't stop it dead.
- yowlingcat 6y ago"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." - Ludwig Wittgenstein
- alextheparrot 6y agoWhat was being trying drawn was a parallel from “A numerical system can be hard to prove correct, in unexpected ways” to “A human system can be hard to prove correct, in unexpected ways”. Recognising this is part of accepting ones own limits. Gödel in no way proves this, as you note, and my wording should have made it more clear that I understand that. The essence of his result is easily analogised, though.
- c1ccccc1 6y agoHonestly, anyone whose precision of knowledge is limited only by Godel's incompleteness theorem deserves to be a little bit arrogant. But no such person exists. Looking back on one's life tends to reveal many errors, blunders, and utterly moronic misconceptions. Plenty of material to provoke humility there. I should say that none of this means there's no such thing as objective reality. There (probably) is some kind of objective reality underlying all of this. But we don't have access to that. All we have access to are the incomplete, quirky, partially-wrong realities that live in each of our heads.
- alextheparrot 6y agoThe point of bringing up Gödel was for analogy rather than as a theory of knowledge. I agree there are many germination points for humility, self-sceptism, and general reflection - we’ve together mentioned a few.