Going through hell before we get to heaven

You are quite weird. Completeness and Consistency are what the Goedel Theorems are all about (look it up on wiki). No I did not google it. Not what physics is about.

It's all the equations of mathematical physics, including the Quantum Theory itself, and our "physics expert" here thinks it's about "completeness and consistancy". No, this sentence has no logical content. Quantum Theory is not about completeness or consistency, I never claimed that, it is about predicting what happens ion the world (per the Copenhagen Interpretation).

Well, I do not see how Goedel invalidates Relativity or Quantum. In fact, do a word search, neither is referenced in either of his theorems. That much being said, how does he put an end to physics, if he never mentions it in his theorems? Does not make sense.
 
radarmark said:
You are quite weird.
Click to expand...

And you have not remote clue about math or physics and it's easy to demonstrat it.

Completeness and Consistency are what the Goedel Theorems are all about (look it up on wiki). No I did not google it. Not what physics is about.

It's all the equations of mathematical physics, including the Quantum Theory itself, and our "physics expert" here thinks it's about "completeness and consistancy". No, this sentence has no logical content. Quantum Theory is not about completeness or consistency, I never claimed that, it is about predicting what happens ion the world (per the Copenhagen Interpretation).

Well, I do not see how Goedel invalidates Relativity or Quantum. In fact, do a word search, neither is referenced in either of his theorems. That much being said, how does he put an end to physics, if he never mentions it in his theorems? Does not make sense.
Click to expand...

Beause it describes ALL THE MATH PHYSICS USES, ALL THE EQUATIONS OF THE QUANTUM THEORY AND GENERAL RELATIVITY, EVERY DARNED ONE, WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

Gödel and the End of Physics
Stephen Hawking
Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate
theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I
used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now
glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end,
and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without
it, we would stagnate. Gödel's theorem ensured there would always be
a job for mathematicians.
http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/news/20030308news/StephenHawking20
030308.htm

Here's what they are talking about, because you'd never sort it out in a lifetime. The enlightened argument against Godel was that if one used an infinite number of axioms, if one accepted an infinite number of things on pure faith and was luckily right on all of them (as if one could), even then, in the mathematics of the Quantum Theory, that decision point, the contingent point, the what if point, where God rolls dice, and Free Will occurs, the infinity is so great, that even assuming an infinite number of axioms doesn't help and Physics can't get the job done.
 
Those are peer-reviewed papers. I'm sure you've heard of the media idol Stephan Hawking? I included him for pop culture "scientists" like you.

Greg Chaitin, is the guy that invented Algorithmic Information Theory itself, for those who know what that is, which clearly excludes you.

But you know better, it came to you in a dream about "the scientific method".

You are exposed.
 
Take care Radar, Passerby hasn't been here long and are picking fights all over the place, you have proven yourself to the people on this board so I don't think there is anything to gain by arguing with it. We both know that sometimes there are no winners.
 
Nah, he knows he's stumbled across someone that can actually do the math.
 
Do not believe him... sorry. Passerby would not know a tensor from a toe-nail.

Notice as much as he claims I do not know, he provides no evidence. Now, I could point out how Quantum, Relativity, and Goedel do not talk about the same thing (as he does). Just look it up.
 
Hahahahaha...

Gödel and the End of Physics
Stephen Hawking
Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate
theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I
used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now
glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end,
and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without
it, we would stagnate. Gödel's theorem ensured there would always be
a job for mathematicians.
http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/news/20030308news/StephenHawking20
030308.htm

On the intelligibility of the universe and the notions of
simplicity, complexity and irreducibility
Gregory Chaitin, IBM Research Division
Well, if you believe in quantum physics, then Nature plays dice, and
that generates complexity, an infinite amount of it, for example, as
frozen accidents, mutations that are preserved in our DNA. So at
this time most scientists would bet that the universe has infinite
complexity, like O does. But then the world is incomprehensible, or
at least a large part of it will always remain so, the accidental
part, all those frozen accidents, the contingent part.
On the Intelligibility of the Universe

Godel's Proof applies to 100% of all the math physics uses, including tensors. But of course, you are totally oblivous to that rather fundamental fact of primary importance.
 
Can one derive the Uncertainty Principle from the tensors of Quantum Physics? Is that math possible?
 
Passerby said:
In the final analysis, pacifism violates the Golden Rule.
Click to expand...
If by pacifism you mean for a person to avoid and not help someone who is being harmed, I would definitely agree. If you mean that a person must enter into a war or violence with someone, for self defense or to defend someone else, I would say definitely not. I can't speak for every situation, but there are often other ways.

It sounds like the action that you would sanction is not really upon the victim. It is upon the attacker. So don't supplant the attacker with the victim. In other words the golden rule is not: Do unto an attacker as you would have others do unto your attacker. Try to imagine yourself as that attacker and ask yourself under what conditions and what manner you would have someone else intercede or intervene. That approach would hopefully help a person derive guidance for the conditions and the manner in which they could intercede or intervene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top