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:
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.
"questionable" ignoring questions; while branding "free-will-of-choice" silly...
SILL, noun (Latin solum; allied to solid; to lay, set) aka form aka ONE; GOOSE, noun (aquatic fowl aka water and air) denotes motion aka flow aka ALL.
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"?
Like I said, your contribution is whatever, I just don’t have much to offer on the subject. If the extent of what this video evoked in you was a schitzophrenic sovereign citizen’s attempt to circumvent legal precedent through a self-made system of grammar, I do see the (limited) overlap, I just wish you were able to link the concepts more wholistically.