4 ms·
My take is that the GP was implicitly referring to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems with the implication being that a system that reasons completely about all th
by lemonwaterlime 1y ago
My take is that the GP was implicitly referring to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems with the implication being that a system that reasons completely about all the human topics and itself is not possible. Therefore, you’d need multiple such systems (plural) working in concert.
- eru 1y agoThat doesn't make much sense. If you take multiple systems and make them work in concert, you just get a bigger system.
- tossandthrow 1y agoConcerts - again plural. And naturally you only bring in appropriate instruments.
- svnt 1y agoTurtles all the way down?
- jijijijij 1y ago> If you take multiple systems and make them work in concert, you just get a bigger system. The conclusion may be wrong, but a "bigger system" can be larger than the sum of its constituents. So a system can have functions, give rise to complexity, neither of its subsystems feature. An example would be the thinking brain, which is made out of neurons/cells incapable of thought, which are made out of molecules incapable of reproduction, which are made from atoms incapable of catalyzing certain chemical reactions and so on.
- svnt 1y agoThis is just emergence, though? How is emergence related to completeness? This happens over and over with the relatively new popularization of a theory: the theory is proposed to be the solution to every missing thing in the same rough conceptual vector. It takes a lot more than just pointing in the general direction of complexity to propose the creation of a complete system, something which with present systems of understanding appears to be impossible.
- CuriouslyC 1y agoSort of, the guardrail here IMO is you have an ontology processor that basically routes to a submodule, and if there isn't a submodule present it errors out. It is one large system, but it's bounded by an understanding of its own knowledge.
- jijijijij 1y agoI believe, neither the expansion of Gödel's theorems to "everything", non-formalized systems, nor the conclusion of a resolution by harnessing multiple systems in concert, are sound reasoning. I think, it's a fallacious reductionism.
- tossandthrow 1y agoWhat is a non-formalized system? I am very curious on this. In particular, if you are able to split systems into formalized and non formalized, then I thinks there are quite some praise and a central spot in all future history books for you!
- jijijijij 1y agoI am not a native speaker, so please don't get hung up on particular expressions. I meant, the colloquial philosophies and general ontology are not subject of Gödel's work. I think, the forgone expansion is similar to finding evidence for telepathy in the pop-sci descriptions of quantum entanglement. Gödel's theorems cover axiomatic, formal systems in mathematics. To apply it to whatever, you first have to formalize whatever. Otherwise, it's an intuition/speculation, not sound reasoning. At least, that's my understanding. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems#Appeals_to_the_incompleteness_theorems_in_other_fields https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_th...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- alisonkisk 1y agoThe person you were replying to is not a native speaker either, and also is not knowledgeable about the core ideas of logical systems (as other commenters have already explained).
- Jeff_Brown 1y agoA collection of systems is itself a system. The theorem would not recognize the distinction.