crypto|eunoia
the most beautiful fucking things in the world.
Ask Δ Archive Δ RSS Δ



Proven in 1931 by Kurt Gödel, his incompleteness theorems say that with any given  set of logical rules, except for the most simple, there will always be  statements that are undecidable, meaning that they cannot be proven or  disproven due to the inevitable self-referential nature of any logical  systems that is even remotely complicated. This is thought to indicate  that there is no grand mathematical system capable of proving or  disproving all statements. An undecidable statement can be thought of as  a mathematical form of a statement like “I always lie.” Because the  statement makes reference to the language being used to describe it, it  cannot be known whether the statement is true or not. However, an  undecidable statement does not need to be explicitly self-referential to  be undecidable. The main conclusion of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems  is that all logical systems will have statements that cannot be proven  or disproven; therefore, all logical systems must be “incomplete.”
The philosophical implications of these theorems are widespread. The  set suggests that in physics, a “theory of everything” may be  impossible, as no set of rules can explain every possible event or  outcome. It also indicates that logically, “proof” is a weaker concept  than “true”; such a concept is unsettling for scientists because it  means there will always be things that, despite being true, cannot be  proven to be true. Since this set of theorems also applies to computers,  it also means that our own minds are incomplete and that there are some  ideas we can never know, including whether our own minds are consistent  (i.e. our reasoning contains no incorrect contradictions). This is  because the second of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems states that no  consistent system can prove its own consistency, meaning that no sane  mind can prove its own sanity. Also, since that same law states that any  system able to prove its consistency to itself must be inconsistent,  any mind that believes it can prove its own sanity is, therefore,  insane.

Proven in 1931 by Kurt Gödel, his incompleteness theorems say that with any given set of logical rules, except for the most simple, there will always be statements that are undecidable, meaning that they cannot be proven or disproven due to the inevitable self-referential nature of any logical systems that is even remotely complicated. This is thought to indicate that there is no grand mathematical system capable of proving or disproving all statements. An undecidable statement can be thought of as a mathematical form of a statement like “I always lie.” Because the statement makes reference to the language being used to describe it, it cannot be known whether the statement is true or not. However, an undecidable statement does not need to be explicitly self-referential to be undecidable. The main conclusion of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is that all logical systems will have statements that cannot be proven or disproven; therefore, all logical systems must be “incomplete.”

The philosophical implications of these theorems are widespread. The set suggests that in physics, a “theory of everything” may be impossible, as no set of rules can explain every possible event or outcome. It also indicates that logically, “proof” is a weaker concept than “true”; such a concept is unsettling for scientists because it means there will always be things that, despite being true, cannot be proven to be true. Since this set of theorems also applies to computers, it also means that our own minds are incomplete and that there are some ideas we can never know, including whether our own minds are consistent (i.e. our reasoning contains no incorrect contradictions). This is because the second of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems states that no consistent system can prove its own consistency, meaning that no sane mind can prove its own sanity. Also, since that same law states that any system able to prove its consistency to itself must be inconsistent, any mind that believes it can prove its own sanity is, therefore, insane.

(Source: mohandasgandhi)



114 notes
  1. clintirwin reblogged this from speakmnemosyne and added:
    LOL! That makes it worth another round here, then
  2. speakmnemosyne reblogged this from clintirwin and added:
    I was going to reblog this but then I forgot for some reason, and two months later, here I am.
  3. downloadtheinternet reblogged this from eddyizm and added:
    If this line of thinking piques your interest check out Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas...
  4. unholy reblogged this from sulu
  5. jahmaal reblogged this from mohandasgandhi and added:
    Now that this has been brought to my attention, I’m intrigued.
  6. kmooks reblogged this from mohandasgandhi
  7. itchaboo reblogged this from deepwithfuture
  8. fesmerisms reblogged this from plasmic-idealism
  9. plasmic-idealism reblogged this from eddyizm
  10. epistemophilia reblogged this from therecipe and added:
    Gödel, Escher, Bach, anybody? (I haven’t finished reading it, actually)
  11. eddyizm reblogged this from mohandasgandhi
  12. cupcakesoncrack reblogged this from cynicalgrey
  13. cynicalgrey reblogged this from mohandasgandhi and added:
    Early morning Logical History, guize :D
  14. lifeinalollyjar reblogged this from hayekshomie
  15. themrowspyjamas reblogged this from mohandasgandhi
  16. stfuchristina reblogged this from sevendinosaurs
  17. deepwithfuture reblogged this from therecipe
  18. anadmiringbog reblogged this from mohandasgandhi and added:
    i love this. so very much. :)
  19. mohandasgandhi reblogged this from therecipe and added:
    I really can’t recommend enough to people to examine the study of logic. I originally started taking logic classes as an...


fnkyspclsprthm theme by parti. powered by tumblr.