Page 2 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Biokinetica
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: Vulcan

17 Mar 2011, 3:47 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Biokinetica wrote:
Quantum physicists aren't even sure of that. How are you?


Goedel and Turing proved this meta mathematically.

if plain old math (i.e. set theory) is consistent then these theorems are true.

ruveyn

Meta-anything is no proof.



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

17 Mar 2011, 4:03 pm

Biokinetica wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Biokinetica wrote:
Quantum physicists aren't even sure of that. How are you?


Goedel and Turing proved this meta mathematically.

if plain old math (i.e. set theory) is consistent then these theorems are true.

ruveyn

Meta-anything is no proof.


Not true. Meta Maths is a legitimate field, as is epistemology.

Here is a simple proof of Turing's Halting Problem;

http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~cs5234/FAQ/halt.html


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


Biokinetica
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: Vulcan

17 Mar 2011, 4:13 pm

So? Psychology is a "legitimate field" too.

"Legitimate field" != one that produces "proofs"



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

17 Mar 2011, 4:25 pm

I was refuting your idea that meta study is somehow flawed. I was claiming that thinking about knowledge itself, or math itself is not inherently fallacious. And that a metaproof is not worthless; it says something about the study of math/knowledge.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

17 Mar 2011, 9:31 pm

Biokinetica wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
Research Turing Machines, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (as ruveyn mentioned already), and Theory of Computation in general.

As ruveyn already said, you are essentially asking for a proof generator and as I recall, a general proof generator is impossible. Not impossible as in lacking computer power, but impossible in the same way that 1+1 can never = 3. It is impossible even with a quantum computer. Very loosely, for any proof generator, you can generate the proofs within that system, but there are things outside of the system that you can't "get to" from within the system. Making more proof generating systems and "linking them together", doesn't work because they (again very loosely) all reduce to the same system if you can link them. If you can't link them, they will prove different different, sometime contradictory things. Any Theory of Computation expert would cringe at this explanation, but it gives a bit of the flavor of the problem.

Quantum physicists aren't even sure of that. How are you?


Quantum computing allows many states in a single quantum bit, but the mathematics still reduces to binary. A quantum computer will be very fast, but it cannot compute things that are non-computable any more than it can make 1+1 equal 3. The quantum aspects don't change the underlying mathematics of computation.


_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.