Is man 'programmed' to seek a 'god'?

[warpus]

I read the article, but would like more descriptions of the liar sentence's application to Godel's theorem. The fact that a) it is in english, and b) i have not been seriously involved in maths for more than a decade make it hard for me to understand in the terms it is presented.
However i gather he showed that if it is impossible even for truths of arithmetics, relations between natural numbers, to be all proven in a theory which is consistent, it then follows naturally that the whole proven knowledge one can have will never be complete, since it would not even be completein one small field of math.

Godel's theory as it relates to the liar's paradox is a bit confusing. It's recursive and the general idea is what lead Godel to work out his theory (I think, anyway). Wish I had some time to sit down and try to explain it in detail, but I'm at work.

 

[Souron]

It may not be possible to know all of mathematics, but I posit that is is possible to know all the laws of nature. Science does have an end. We can in time explain how nature works fully. Now that wouldn't mean that we will always get the weather right, or that there won't be new things to engineer.

 

[Kyriakos]

What about knowing how nature works if it is based on more than three dimensions? Would it not be true that since we cannot grasp a four dimensional object as at the same time an infinite and a finite object, we therefore cannot understand how a four dimensional nature would operate?

 

[Souron]

We can still formally describe the behavior of a four dimensional object using mathematics.

We kinda of already have theories that can be described mathematically, but that lack an intuitive explanation.

 

[Kyriakos]

Ok, however a being that witnessed the world in 2 dimensions could have theories about three dimensions as well, but it would have been by definition impossible for it to grasp intuitively an object in three dimensions. This might mean that it can never truly understand a three dimensional object's laws.
A simple example is a being that can see length and width, but not height. For it effectively the law of gravity does not exist, since there is no dynamic energy at all. Would it not follow that by its very nature it cannot know "all" of the natural laws?
And,likewise, are not we in the same predicament if 4 dimensions exist in reality, ie are sensed intuitively by other beings?

 

[warpus]

It may not be possible to know all of mathematics, but I posit that is is possible to know all the laws of nature. Science does have an end. We can in time explain how nature works fully. Now that wouldn't mean that we will always get the weather right, or that there won't be new things to engineer.

The issue is that we are a part of nature, so any complete explanation of nature is going to have to include us in it, including our explanation of nature..

This conceptual idea of explaining something in terms of itself is why Goedel's theorem exists and .. while I'm not fully convinced that it applies to nature, I don't think it's possible to understand *everything*. There will always be more, imo.

 

[Domen]

You don't need first-hand observational data of an event to form a scientific theory about it.

Yeah but in this case there is neither first-hand, nor second-hand, nor third-hand nor any other observational data...

same with evolution

Actually there is no just one, undoubtfully correct, theory of evolution.

Many scientists have undermined - to smaller or bigger extent - the original Darwin's concept of gradual, slow process of formation of new species. Check for example the development of the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, initiated in 1971 by Niles Eldredge & Stephen Jay Gould. This theory's conclusion is that new species are being formed over relatively very short periods of time (formation of a new species from an old one is a matter of just several generations according to them, IIRC). Another conclusion of Eldredge and Gould was that new species not only arise relatively quickly, but also don't change (i.e. don't evolve) so significantly during majority of the period of their existence. They based their conclusions mainly on research of paleontological data.

 

[warpus]

Yeah but in this case there is neither first-hand, nor second-hand, nor third-hand nor any other observational data...

From the big bang you mean?

How do you think the big bang theory arose in the first place? Random guess? It was due to observational data. I'm surprised you don't know this, I thought it was common knowledge.

 

[Domen]

How do you think the big bang theory arose in the first place? Random guess? It was due to observational data.

The Bing Bang theory itself arose of course due to observational data - as it is entirely possible to observe what was since the moment Bing Bang, after it happened. However, it is not possible to observe what was before the moment of Bing Bang. And I wasn't talking about the Big Bang theory itself (i.e. I don't doubt that there was a Big Bang, this seems to be very well proven), but about existing views / hypothesis on what was (or what wasn't) before it.

I'm surprised you don't know this, I thought it was common knowledge.

You mixed 2 different things - one thing is proof that Bing Bang took place (this is common knowledge), another one is what was before Big Bang. As I wrote above it is entirely possible to observe what happened since the Big Bang, as light, time & space (in forms in which we know them) beginned at the moment of Big Bang.

 

[warpus]

The Bing Bang theory itself arose of course due to observational data - as it is entirely possible to observe what was since the moment Bing Bang, after it happened. However, it is not possible to observe what was before the moment of Bing Bang. And I wasn't talking about the Big Bang theory itself (i.e. I don't doubt that there was a Big Bang, this seems to be very well proven), but about existing views / hypothesis on what was (or what wasn't) before it.

You mixed 2 different things - one thing is proof that Bing Bang took place (this is common knowledge), another one is what was before Big Bang. As I wrote above it is entirely possible to observe what happened since the Big Bang, as light and time (in form in which we know them) beginned at the moment of Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory does not deal at all with what happened before the Big Bang.. that is well outside of the scope of the theory.

I was under the impression that your issue was with the big bang theory though, that's what you were talking about.

And you know, it is not necessarily true that we might not be able to get at observational data that's related to "before the big bang", if such a time even existed. I don't think you should assume that.

 

[Domen]

The Big Bang theory does not deal at all with what happened before the Big Bang.. that is well outside of the scope of the theory.

That's why I was not talking about the Big Bang theory, but about "theories" on what happened before the Big Bang.

if such a time even existed.

There must have been some cause of it. Although it is likely that time (in the form in which we know it from "our" Universe at least) didn't exist before it.

The Big Bang theory doesn't explain why the Big Bang took place - it explains how the Universe was created with the moment of Big Bang taking place.

I don't think you should assume that.

Assume what? That there was "before the Big Bang" or that we might not be able to get an observational data of "before the Big Bang"?

 

[warpus]

I read the article, but would like more descriptions of the liar sentence's application to Godel's theorem. The fact that a) it is in english, and b) i have not been seriously involved in maths for more than a decade make it hard for me to understand in the terms it is presented.
However i gather he showed that if it is impossible even for truths of arithmetics, relations between natural numbers, to be all proven in a theory which is consistent, it then follows naturally that the whole proven knowledge one can have will never be complete, since it would not even be completein one small field of math.

I have some time now but am having real trouble attempting to explain all this stuff

One last try:

First some background: A mathematical theorem is composed of a bunch of axioms and all the statements that follow from the axioms.

Gödel's Theorem basically says that no matter what theorem you pick (that is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic) there will be always true statements in the theorem that can't be derived from any of the axioms

His proof uses the Gödel Sentence, which is G = "this G cannot be formally derived under the axioms and rules of inference of T ".

Let's try to prove G is true by contradiction: Assume that G can be derived from the axioms of T. If G can be derived from the axioms of T then it would be false and thus T would be inconsistent. (A consistent theory must only contain true sentences or axioms). Therefore our assumption must be false and G is true and since it is true it must be a part of T.

We've proved the truthness of G without using any of the axioms of T. We've basically proved the truth of G outside of the system T, even though it's impossible to prove its truth inside T. G is a true statement within T that cannot be derived by any of its axioms.

And so Gödel's Theorem is proved.

So ANYWAY, Gödel's sentence is the exact same thing as the sentence in the liar's paradox: "This sentence is false"

And double anyway, I was wrong all along. Gödel's Theorem only implies that there are things that can never be proved, not that there are an infinite number of things that remain to be proved. So it doesn't really apply to anything in this discussion anyway

 

[Souron]

There must have been some cause of it. Although it is likely that time (in the form in which we know it from "our" Universe at least) didn't exist before it.

This is incorrect. There need not be a cause. It could have been the start, as is part of the present theory. If time did not exist, then there could not be a cause.

 

[Domen]

This is incorrect. There need not be a cause. It could have been the start, as is part of the present theory. If time did not exist, then there could not be a cause.

What's the logic behind it? Any more details?

If time did not exist, then there could not be a cause.

Time - as something separate from space and movement - even exists or ever existed?

 

[Kyriakos]

Thank you for your trouble, Warpus, i will check the explanation again

A while ago someone had started a thread with an interesting imo premise, highly theoretical of course and unprovable, but poetically beautiful. The premise was that every person, upon his death, goes to where he actually believed he will go. For example christians go to some sort of paradise, those who believe in reincarnation get born again here, and atheists just vanish.
I was wondering if there can be a mathematical sentence describing this situation. What would it really require? Some sort of built-in mechanism in the mind, united with the universe or some deity? Altering with thoughts.
I am not claiming i am believing it as true, but i do find it poetic

On the other hand it reminds me of a quote by Nietzsche, that:

"They all want to believe what they wish to, and at the same time all be correct to do so; they do not wish science anymore, but religion"

 

[warpus]

Thank you for your trouble, Warpus, i will check the explanation again

No problem. It frustrated me that I could not fully wrap my head around Goedel's stupid theorem so I sat there reading it, making notes, and thinking about it until it finally made sense. Once I figured it out, I could sleep.

 

[Souron]

What's the logic behind it? Any more details?

not requiring something is the default case, so it's hard to say why you don't need a cause without an argument for why one is needed to refute. Generally things can be shown to have a cause because they have a prior state that can be computed by tracing the current state back in time. But if time had a beginning, then that's not the case.

Time - as something separate from space and movement - even exists or ever existed?

Einstein described time as a dimension, like the 3 spacial dimensions. You can't reduce the number of dimension in the world, but you can have an edge (or would it be called a face?).

 

[Domen]

Generally things can be shown to have a cause because they have a prior state that can be computed by tracing the current state back in time.

But if time had a beginning

Objectively (in the physical sense) time most probably doesn't exist at all. That's why you most probably can't travel back in time.

Physicians invented a physical quantity called "time" because it is useful in describing changes around us as well as movement.

Einstein described time as a dimension

And.... ???

And Moses described God as burning bush.

And? .....

As I wrote above - it can't be proven that time - objectively - exists.

For those who travel in space with speed close to light speed time runs much slower than at the same time for those who move with much slower speed (the paradox of twins; see for example "Return from the stars" by S. Lem). Also in the Black Hole time runs differently (or doesn't run at all) due to different movement and gravity. Thus there is no one same time for everyone - it depends entirely on other factors. Thus time objectively probably doesn't exist.

It could have been the start, as is part of the present theory

The present hypothesis is that there was a static praatom, concentrating in itself entire matter and space before it exploded (the moment of Big Bang).

Then comes the question what was before that praatom and how was it created?

 

[Souron]

Objectively (in the physical sense) time most probably doesn't exist at all. That's why you most probably can't travel back in time.

Physicians invented a physical quantity called "time" because it is useful in describing changes around us as well as movement.

If time is a useful quality to measure, then it exists, rather trivially.

And.... ???

And Moses described God as burning bush.

And? .....

It was just another way of saying that it's in the textbooks.

As I wrote above - it can't be proven that time - objectively - exists.

For those who travel in space with speed close to light speed time runs much slower than at the same time for those who move with much slower speed (the paradox of twins; see for example "Return from the stars" by S. Lem). Also in the Black Hole time runs differently (or doesn't run at all) due to different movement and gravity. Thus there is no one same time for everyone - it depends entirely on other factors. Thus time objectively probably doesn't exist.

Relativity does not posit that time doesn't exist. Rather it describes how time differs for objects moving at different speeds, acceleataions, and gravity wells. This is still a very objective notion of time, because under the same conditions, time behaves exactly the same way. It does not at all depend on who or what the observer is, and applies even to inanimate objects that change over time.

The present hypothesis is that there was a static praatom, concentrating in itself entire matter and space before it exploded (the moment of Big Bang).

Then comes the question what was before that praatom and how was it created?

It doesn't need to have been created. A simple model is that it just started out that way. Which is the defacto picture of the Big Bang.

 

[holy king]

i skipped the last few pages, does kochmann know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis yet?

Moderator Action: Inappropriate.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889