5 ms·

>Maybe we are not to dumb, maybe such an theory does not exist because for some deep reasons there ere just no mathematical expressions describing (some parts o

by DenisM 12y ago

>Maybe we are not to dumb, maybe such an theory does not exist because for some deep reasons there ere just no mathematical expressions describing (some parts of) nature. I find Godel's incompleteness theorem suggests there are fundamental limits to "knowledge" as we define it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_the...

judk 12y ago
That only applies to infinity. A closed physical system (which a solar system approximates decently well) is not touched by it.
- DenisM 12y ago
  A single particle can take infinite number of positions.
  - danbruc 12y ago
    Only if there are an infinite number of positions, i.e. if space is infinite or at least continuous.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
No, that only puts limits on the provability of particular theorems in formal proof systems. Inductive reasoners have no such trouble.
- DenisM 12y ago
  I would think I that provability is of critical importance. Could you elaborate? Is there something I can read on this point of view?
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    Formal proof is not actually a part of real epistemology outside of mathematics.
    - DenisM 12y ago
      I see what you mean. I don't feel like I agree but I don't have a position of my own to retort with, not yet anyway. Thanks for your perspective.