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:
He was a proponent of the use of certain syntax he created to be used by people involved in legal proceedings. He referred to his syntax as QUANTUM-LANGUAGE-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR which he asserts constitutes "correct sentence structure communication syntax."[7] This is a variation of the tax protester "capital letters" argument, a form of strawman theory. People seeking remedy with Miller's syntax in court have not met with success.[2][8]
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
"logic is INCOMPLETE. When you understand what that means, the way yo͓͓͂ͪur perceive the world will change"
Correct, when you assume this to be true. You are a person without meaning. You become un-grouded, and scared like an animal free from his cage while falling off a cliff.
Systems can neither self test themselves, nor self actualize. Which leads me to my next Question...
What does grounding represent for form within flow? What if our foundation represents flow and to sustain our form within it, we need to ground ourselves to flow to channel "perceived" power (potentiality) into "comprehended" power (potential)?
Have you come up with a counter to either of his incompleteness theorems? Are you able to propose a more complete and wholistic system? Feel free to try, that was one of the many points of this post
Then you should have said that. Instead, you asked us for our reactions, then left the thread open for discussion. Or did I miss something upon reading, "Broad discussion topic : what is your reaction to this"?
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
Wow. I touched a nerve there didn't I? More like a live wire.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
Whatever dude
Here, you dropped this \.
Correct, when you assume this to be true. You are a person without meaning. You become un-grouded, and scared like an animal free from his cage while falling off a cliff.
Systems can neither self test themselves, nor self actualize. Which leads me to my next Question...
Hi. How are you do͂ing?
What does grounding represent for form within flow? What if our foundation represents flow and to sustain our form within it, we need to ground ourselves to flow to channel "perceived" power (potentiality) into "comprehended" power (potential)?
You are a silly goose.
Have you come up with a counter to either of his incompleteness theorems? Are you able to propose a more complete and wholistic system? Feel free to try, that was one of the many points of this post
Then you should have said that. Instead, you asked us for our reactions, then left the thread open for discussion. Or did I miss something upon reading, "Broad discussion topic : what is your reaction to this"?