Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: sgf: "Re: how many bastards are there, anyway?"
• Previous message: Len Piotrowski: "Re: The Real Place of Fuzziness in Anthropology"

@#$%!?! wrote:
>
> : Godel's famous Incompleteness Theorem proves that any formal deductive
> : system of sufficient power (at least the power of Peano arithmetic,
> : which isn't that powerful) will be incomplete. That is, it will be
>
> Incomplete or inconsistent.
>

That's right, but if a system of axioms is inconsistent then it's completely
worthless less because you can "prove" anything.

> : because physical science is based on inductive reasoning. People look
>
> Induction is irrelevant. If space-time is quantised, and various other
> conditions, then any statement about the universe can be mapped into a
> statement about number theory. How you come up such a statement,
> deduction, induction, intuition, WoG (word of god), is irrelevant.
>

I'm not sure whether you are claiming that the universe can be mapped into a
statement about number theory, but if you are I wonder where you picked up such
an idea. That would be a claim that would almost make me sympathetic to Joel's
point of view.

Steve Barnard

• Next message: sgf: "Re: how many bastards are there, anyway?"
• Previous message: Len Piotrowski: "Re: The Real Place of Fuzziness in Anthropology"