Broad discussion topic : what is your reaction to this
(m.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (37)
sorted by:
Quite a mind blowing video. Gödel proved that any and all worthwhile systems of logic are incomplete. That is, there are true statements which exist within any given system which the system itself is incapable of proving.
If you’ve studied ancient conceptions of religion, you may be familiar with the term “ein sof”,”pleroma”, or “Godhead”, and if you’re familiar with military interventionism and history you may have heard the idiom “known unknowns and unknown unknowns”. Could the ancients have instinctively understood the limits of logic, without having formally proved such things?
I just think that this video could produce so many interesting discussions I want to try not to limit them too much here, so please post anything this video evokes in you and let’s discuss
Yeah, it’s the one I figured most people would have seen before, but you could also say “pleroma” from the gnostic/Christian tradition, or “godhead” as a more general term common to the abrahamic faiths, basically that aspect of the divine which is by definition ungraspable by us.
These terms and ideas long predate the kabbalah (approx. 600ad), though they are certainly meditated on in there. I picked the term because it is relatively well known and succinctly expresses the idea
What is your foundation?
Fifteen minutes in, and I am thinking of 'Now Time Quantum Grammar'.
Oof just looked that up on (wiki), and I’m gunna just say “finish the video and let’s see if you want to take the convo in a different direction because I have nothing of value to say about the sovereign citizen movement and especially not about weird grammatical sub-theories therein”
Lol
So math based on Axioms, based on grammar is fine, especially when it's created to created paradoxes. But creating grammar to prove math is 'oof' and 'lol'?
Well at least you have a closed mind.
In addition, the basic premise of the video seems to revolve around your definition of the word 'conjecture' as something that is provable. Which is not how I define that word.
The entire point of Gödel’s work was to remove the unreliability of language. He reduced “Logic” (i.e. or,and,if, etc) to symbols. He then demonstrated that even when reduced to their most fundamental form, symbolic representation (i.e. math and thus language and thus human culture and so many other things), logic is INCOMPLETE. When you understand what that means, the way your perceive the world will change.
Regarding that silly shit you mentioned, here is the quote from wiki, aka the first thing that comes up when searched:
Sounds worthless, am I missing something? Because according to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, not only is the idea of a “perfect language” (much less one that magically wins court cases for you) silly, but literally not real
LOG'IC, noun [Latin id; Gr. from reason, to speak.] Reason (conflict between truth vs false) is based on consent to believe in suggested words; while to consent to suggestion represents the ignorance towards free will of evaluation. ALL worth is predefined and offered through flow; so that the form within can evaluate it by choice of action to sustain form within flow.
SYS'TEM, noun [Latin systema; Gr. to set.] Flow sets forms into itself; ALL sets ONE into itself; potentiality sets potential into itself. Energy represents the system...that sets ALL within itself for self sustenance.
True and false are based on the choice within form to ignore flow; they are upheld within form as beliefs, and whichever side ONE chooses to believe/not believe; a conflict with other ONEs emerges (reason).
As for proof...that's not the system (ALL) incapable to define itself; it's the processed form within (ONE) struggling to comprehend their own limitations. PROVE, verb transitive prov. [Latin probo.] - "to try". ALL is a process (energy in motion); the ONEs within are processed (form within flow); hence the need to "try" to sustain themselves (form) through adaptation (by choice of action) to motion (flow).
RELIGION, noun relij'on. (Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew). The "old" bond between flow and form is self sustenance; the "new" bond between form and form is ignorance of self sustenance within flow.
Motion binds momentum; religion is suggested within momentum and requires consent towards the ignorance of motion (belief aka mental stagnation towards need for adaptation).