tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post3609209066357209728..comments2021-10-15T03:40:39.620-04:00Comments on Recursivity: The Comical Misunderstandings of O'Leary and MarksUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-29889065591110561392008-05-07T07:29:00.000-04:002008-05-07T07:29:00.000-04:00Saying that M-theory is "reminiscent" of Göde...Saying that M-theory is "reminiscent" of Gödel's theorem is a far cry from saying that Gödel puts limits on our physical theories. <BR/><BR/>Torkel Franzen, in his book <I>Gödel's Theorem</I>, addresses this point, and he is not very kind to the physicists who think Gödel has implications for physics.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-5204481939912661462008-05-03T05:55:00.000-04:002008-05-03T05:55:00.000-04:00Mistake 5: This objection may be more contentious....<I>Mistake 5: This objection may be more contentious. Marks thinks the work of Gödel and Turing has important implications for physics.</I><BR/><BR/>In 2003, Stephen Hawking addressed this issue in a talk entitled <A HREF="http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/" REL="nofollow">"Gödel and the end of physics"</A>:<BR/><BR/><I>"Up to now, most people have implicitly assumed that there is an ultimate theory, that we will eventually discover. Indeed, I myself have suggested we might find it quite soon. However, <A REF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory">M-theory</A> has made me wonder if this is true. Maybe it is not possible to formulate the theory of the universe in a finite number of statements. This is very reminiscent of Goedel's theorem. This says that any finite system of axioms, is not sufficient to prove every result in mathematics...<BR/>What we need, is a formulation of M theory, that takes account of the black hole information limit. But then our experience with supergravity and string theory, and the analogy of Goedel's theorem, suggest that even this formulation, will be incomplete.<BR/>"</I><BR/><BR/>So at the very least, Stephen now leans towards thinking that Gödel does have "important implications for physics".<BR/><BR/>Stanley Jaki <A HREF="http://pirate.shu.edu/~jakistan/JakiGodel.pdf" REL="nofollow">proposed this connection</A> in 1966.<BR/><BR/>Suggesting that there is such an implication/connection strikes me as an interesting possibility, rather than a mistake.Fr. Terry Donahue, CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191060499486455322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-74372773650241130142008-05-02T14:32:00.000-04:002008-05-02T14:32:00.000-04:00Haha, I remember using Godel's theorems and Haltin...Haha, I remember using Godel's theorems and Halting Problem myself, as I was trying to explain to a friend of mine why I sympathise with Christianity, but not as a "proof", rather as a description of "how it feels". I am _not_ a ID supporter, though; it's extremely foolish that they try to reinforce a _belief_ system with [pseudo]scientific methods.<BR/><BR/>(Alex Karpov)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-73328647266750289472008-04-29T23:36:00.000-04:002008-04-29T23:36:00.000-04:00Jeffrey,Thanks!Jeffrey,<BR/><BR/>Thanks!trutihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06313354254836558451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-21256322381131382232008-04-29T09:30:00.000-04:002008-04-29T09:30:00.000-04:00Truti:We don't prove theories in science the same ...Truti:<BR/><BR/>We don't prove theories in science the same way we prove theorems in mathematics. I think, colloquially, people often speak of a particular theory being proved, but this just means that it has passed a significant test or tests that would have disproved the theory if another result had been obtained. <BR/><BR/>All our scientific theories are susceptible of being overturned by more fruitful or comprehensive theories -- the way that Newtonian mechanics was overthrown by Einstein.<BR/><BR/>As for Gödel's "proof" of god, it is based on modal logic. I have never been very impressed by the reasonableness of modal logic, and I haven't made any effort to understand Gödel's proof.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-4833540048180418522008-04-29T08:52:00.000-04:002008-04-29T08:52:00.000-04:00Jeffrey,Is it right at all to say that we prove th...Jeffrey,<BR/><BR/>Is it right at all to say that we prove theories in physics? We only experiment and verify isn't it?<BR/><BR/>Could you provide us a quick and simple idea of Godel's proof of god?<BR/><BR/>Thanks!trutihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06313354254836558451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-63277072071143487962008-04-27T22:41:00.000-04:002008-04-27T22:41:00.000-04:00Engineering prof, huh? Speaking as another enginee...Engineering prof, huh? Speaking as another engineer, Marks' claims sound like something I might say about Turing and Godel, if I didn't know just enough to recognize how tenuous my grasp of that stuff actually is, and keep quiet.Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-53687681377268782252008-04-27T13:26:00.000-04:002008-04-27T13:26:00.000-04:00Thanks for the reference to Torkel Franzen's book....Thanks for the reference to Torkel Franzen's book. The name was familiar to me, so I did a quick Google search, which refreshed my memory of having interacted with him on Usenet in the alt.atheism newsgroup. I'm sorry to learn from his Wikipedia page that he died two years ago this month from bone cancer.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-62541995683033912262008-04-26T13:18:00.000-04:002008-04-26T13:18:00.000-04:00Mistake 5: This objection may be more contentious....<I>Mistake 5: This objection may be more contentious. Marks thinks the work of Gödel and Turing has important implications for physics. I don't, and the reason is that we don't prove our theories in physics the same way we prove our theorems in mathematics. Physical theories represent our current understanding of an approximation to the natural world, not diktats on how it must behave.</I><BR/><BR/>That captures the essential difference between the intelligent design creationists and science. ID creationists regard theories as determining reality; scientists regard reality as determining theories.<BR/><BR/>Put more simply, ID creationists regard scientific "laws" as legislation, not generalizations about nature.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-84040729054528876572008-04-26T12:40:00.000-04:002008-04-26T12:40:00.000-04:00Any theory rich enough to prove theorems of mathem...Any theory rich enough to prove theorems of mathematical physics will contain incompleteness phenomena. Some computer scientists advocate axiomatizing the existence of "feasible incompleteness phenomena" by adopting "P does not equal NP" as a physical law. It is still unclear whether either form of incompleteness phenomena has any material impact on the physical world. Godel sentences are not "natural," in the sense that they do not appear in problems studied by natural scientists. Even the statement, "There are truths that are experimentally observable but not rigorously provable," is not clearly related to the Incompleteness Theorem, nor to P/NP, since interesting, observable truths may correspond to a small part of the tautologies derivable from a theory by symbolic manipulation. The case for a relationship between incompleteness/infeasibility and physical science remains to be made.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-42270103905173166472008-04-26T10:22:00.000-04:002008-04-26T10:22:00.000-04:00I think Chaitin has a tendency to, shall we say, s...I think Chaitin has a tendency to, shall we say, somewhat overstate the importance of work he is involved with.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-69008227874727374062008-04-26T09:56:00.000-04:002008-04-26T09:56:00.000-04:00Vis-a-vis Marks' "Mistake 5", Chaitin does state t...<EM>Vis-a-vis</EM> Marks' "Mistake 5", Chaitin does state the following:<BR/><BR/><EM>I should state here that AIT has an intimate connection with physics.</EM><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/unknowable/ch7.html" REL="nofollow">over here</A> in the second para of the "Afterthoughts..." section. Of course, "intimate connection" may not be the same as "implication".<BR/><BR/>Also, I am not sure how physicist's view Chaitin's own ideas/works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-48332694431497330732008-04-26T09:14:00.000-04:002008-04-26T09:14:00.000-04:00Sigh. Gödel's incompleteness theorems has got to b...Sigh. Gödel's incompleteness theorems has got to be two of the most abused theorems in all of mathematics.<BR/><BR/>I have to say that I'm impressed with your willingness to give Marks the benefit of doubt, given the tendency of IDists to twist and spin anything and everything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com