3 ms·
It doesn't take 'infinite complexity' [your term] to encode the natural numbers. Rather it is only a handful of axioms. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primit
by yohanatan 12y ago
It doesn't take 'infinite complexity' [your term] to encode the natural numbers. Rather it is only a handful of axioms. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_recursive_arithmetic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_recursive_arithmetic
Pretty much any system of logic worth looking at (including any which the sciences may be based on and the one running inside each human brain) is going to at least be as complex as this set of axioms.
Also, you really should read the JR Lucas material-- it explains this. And, I'd suggest Nagel & Newman's _Godel's Proof_ for a great introductory explanation of the Incompleteness Theorems.
- eli_gottlieb 12y agoYeah, but he was talking about the real numbers.
- yohanatan 12y agoBut the reals are irrelevant as far as Incompleteness is concerned. He's obviously confused.
- yohanatan 12y agoDownvoters: if you disagree, feel free to post an attempt at a refutation or somehow otherwise explain your vote.
- j2kun 12y agoWe don't know that the physical world has infinite precision. In particular, time doesn't even seem to be continuous as far as we can tell (cf. Planck constant). And we think there's a finite amount of mass in the universe, so how could we encode arbitrarily large natural numbers (as is required to model Peano arithmetic)?
- yohanatan 12y agoWe don't have to encode arbitrarily large natural numbers. Rather we have to encode the rules that allow us to construct them (which is quite simple actually). And, I think 'digital physics' is more compatible with Incompleteness implications than the alternatives; not less.
- j2kun 12y agoHow can you construct something which is larger than the amount of mass in the universe?