stuart@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Kurtz) (06/26/84)
RR: To show that the internal logic of the faith is coherent is not
enough.
Godel: If one can show (prove) that any interesting (sufficiently powerful)
belief system is coherent (consistent), within that system this
would itself prove that system inconsistant.
SAK: I take it from the tenor of RR's comment, that he can prove that
his own belief system is consistent. This must mean it's either
inconsistent or uninteresting. Vote? ;-)
----------------------------------------
Stuart Kurtz : Department of Computer Science
ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart : The University of Chicagoalan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (06/26/84)
> RR: To show that the internal logic of the faith is coherent is not > enough. > Godel: If one can show (prove) that any interesting (sufficiently powerful) > belief system is coherent (consistent), within that system this > would itself prove that system inconsistant. > SAK: I take it from the tenor of RR's comment, that he can prove that > his own belief system is consistent. This must mean it's either > inconsistent or uninteresting. Vote? ;-) I vote for uninteresting. Rich stopped hearing what anyone else has to say a long time ago, and that doesn't make for good conversation. /|\ | [Open-Mindedness] | | | | [Theism] | [Atheism] <-----------------------------------------> | | | | | | [Close-Mindedness] \|/ =Larry= =Rich= They're a lot more alike than either of them realizes! -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/29/84)
> RR: To show that the internal logic of the faith is coherent is not > enough. > Godel: If one can show (prove) that any interesting (sufficiently powerful) > belief system is coherent (consistent), within that system this > would itself prove that system inconsistant. > SAK: I take it from the tenor of RR's comment, that he can prove that > his own belief system is consistent. This must mean it's either > inconsistent or uninteresting. Vote? ;-) Who said that reality had to be interesting? :-) On the other hand, who said reality had to be consistent... [I expected better from you... Remember, it's all a joke.] -- If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
dsaker@iuvax.UUCP (08/02/84)
[] The way Godel's Incompleteness Theorems are tossed around makes me sick. These are technical results; they can't be thrown into the realm of ordinary philosophical deliberations off-handedly. Before anyone out there throws them in again, please, PLEASE, GO & READ A PRECISE STATEMENT OF THEM. Daryel Akerlind "Your ignorance makes me ...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker ill and angry ..."
stuart@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Kurtz) (08/06/84)
Readers of net.religon ... I apologize for that flaw in my personality that requires me to publically respond to public attacks. > From: dsaker@iuvax.UUCP > ... > > [] > The way Godel's Incompleteness Theorems are tossed around makes me sick. > These are technical results; they can't be thrown into the realm of > ordinary philosophical deliberations off-handedly. > Before anyone out there throws them in again, please, PLEASE, GO & READ > A PRECISE STATEMENT OF THEM. > > Daryel Akerlind "Your ignorance makes me > ...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker ill and angry ..." First, I am quite well acquainted with the precise, formal versions of Godel's theorems. My credentials include a PhD in mathematical logic. It is important to remember that mathematical logic is first and foremost a mathematical analysis of reasoning. Therefore, attempts to transfer technical theorems of mathematical logic to informal arguments are not *necessarily* flawed a priori. My use of the incompleteness theorem was to point out a specific technical flaw in Rich Rosen's reasoning. I challenge Mr Akerling *personally*, to point out why my original application of the 2nd incompleteness theorem was incorrect. (I did implicitly assume that RR accepts the rules of arithmetic.) ---------------------------------------- "Some of us sheep are sheep, and some of us are wolves." Stuart Kurtz : Department of Computer Science ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart : The University of Chicago