Techno Will Save Your Soul

[Triple Zero]

I dig it. Godel proved that math can never be entirely right.

yea and he did it from the most simple number theory thing, meaning you don't even need complicated obscure etheric math stuff like uncountable infinite sets or real numbers (which cause most of the other math paradoxes thanks to the axiom of choice), but just counting natural numbers

the book "Goedel Escher Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter explains Goedels incompleteness theorem in a way easily understood by anyone with a good brain for math and logic (but no prerequisite knowledge necessary) and also talks about a whole bunch of other interesting subjects .. the few chapters about the incompleteness theorem pretty much blew my mind, i really gotta read that book again sometime

[The Littlest Ubermensch]

yea and he did it from the most simple number theory thing, meaning you don't even need complicated obscure etheric math stuff like uncountable infinite sets or real numbers (which cause most of the other math paradoxes thanks to the axiom of choice), but just counting natural numbers

the book "Goedel Escher Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter explains Goedels incompleteness theorem in a way easily understood by anyone with a good brain for math and logic (but no prerequisite knowledge necessary) and also talks about a whole bunch of other interesting subjects .. the few chapters about the incompleteness theorem pretty much blew my mind, i really gotta read that book again sometime

Okay, now about the Axiom of Choice. I read up the Wiki and it says

The axiom of choice states:

Let X be a set of non-empty sets. Then we can choose a single member from each set in X.
A choice function is a function on a collection of sets X such that for every set s in X, f(s) is an element of s. With this concept, the axiom can be stated:

For any set of non-empty sets, X, there exists a choice function f defined on X.
Or alternatively:

An arbitrary Cartesian product of non-empty sets is non-empty.
Or most compactly:

Every set of nonempty sets has a choice function.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that just say "If there's something that has stuff in it, there's at least one particular article of stuff in it?" And more basically, isn't that just a harder to grasp way of saying "x=x"?
Ugh, number theory makes me want to jump off a bridge.

[Triple Zero]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that just say "If there's something that has stuff in it, there's at least one particular article of stuff in it?" And more basically, isn't that just a harder to grasp way of saying "x=x"?
Ugh, number theory makes me want to jump off a bridge.

well it kind of gets tricky once the set is infinite or fractal or something. but really i wouldn't know, this is tricky stuff. i don't understand it. all i can say is i think that bucky fuller would probably not approve of it.

but really i shouldn't talk about things i don't know shit about. so drop the AC bit, if you read wikipedia you know as much as i do

[LMNO]

Ok.  I have no idea what you are saying.

Please explain it to me like I am a 4 yo because your ubermensch logic has me confused.

But I can say what I was saying about Karma has nothing to do with spiritual or metaphysical concepts.  It is grounded into reality and the consequences of ones decisions in the here and now, not in the afterlife or another life.

There is also no greater good than pie.

The Commander
DIA

I'm pretty sure the Hindu/Buddhist idea of karma is exactly the idea that your screwups and accomplishments will follow you into the next life and determine how things work in it, but even without reincarnation, the idea of karma is subject to abuse.
For example:
1. You believe in karma.
2. Nothing can be known with complete certainty.
3. You cannot know the entire consequences of your actions, in a butterfly effect kind of way.
4. I say that I have insider knowledge of the karmic consequences of certain actions of yours, and claim this is because of some spiritual revelation.
5. You believe at least to a small extent in the existence of spiritual revelation.
6. I say that if you eat pie, your face will be torn off by tigers.
7. There is no way of knowing if I am telling the truth.
8. You therefore must choose between eating pie with potential consequences of a tiger mauling, or not eating pie with near certainty of avoiding said tiger mauling.
9. You are a rational person.
10. Pie is not as important as not being mauled.
11. Therefore you choose not to eat pie to resist mauling, if there is enough supposed credibility in what I say (and not much is necessary.)

In that scenario, an effective banning of pie has taken place assuming I was charismatic enough to have a little credibility.
While that scenario is extreme, that sort of thing is completely possible and has occurred. Usually the person declaring karmic knowledge would find some way to make his claims impossible to prove or deny, either by saying "Oh, it'll come around in your next life" or "Sometimes mercy is granted upon you, but you also don't know when [higher power/nature/universal law] won't be so easy on you" most popularly.

By doing this, any rule that a charismatic few want to put on everyone else can be put into place under the pretenses of karma.

Though now that I think about it, I might choose pie over the fate of my tiger mauled face. *thoughtful face*

That only works if you're too lazy to do a pie-eating experiment, and you trust people who say things that are not verifiable.

[LMNO]

Cause =Effect.  Isn't that a law of physics or something?

I don't place much stock in physics. It has a tendency to keep being very wrong. Examples of ideas that flew in the face of old physics/mathematics: Non-Euclidean geometry, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Gravity, fractal dimensions, 4th dimensional theories, Quantum theory, the idea of atoms not being solid, and so on.

I adamantly stand that cause and effect relationships are as fictional as the Reagan administration and the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Physics is a science, and therefore a self-correcting mechanism.  The same cannot be said for most non-scientific systems.

Of course not. I just don't like physics because it's much less fun than unscientific things.

You obviously haven't really understood physics, then.  That shit is weirder (and more fun) than most.

And Goedel's proof obviously stems for the fact that numbers (and, by extension, math) is an abstract concept and is therefore open to manipulation and paradox.

[The Commander]

4. I say that I have insider knowledge of the karmic consequences of certain actions of yours, and claim this is because of some spiritual revelation.

Usually the person declaring karmic knowledge would find some way to make his claims impossible to prove or deny, either by saying "Oh, it'll come around in your next life" or "Sometimes mercy is granted upon you, but you also don't know when [higher power/nature/universal law] won't be so easy on you" most popularly.

Keep in mind I am talking theory. There is no accounting for individual naivete or stupidity.

Again, you are assuming some supernatural element to the equation.  You are correct in that the consequences of your actions cannot be known for certain, but that applies to everyone, not just yourself.  No one can know the full effect of ones consequences.  The examples of influence you give require the person attempting to influence someone to have or claim to have supernatural or spiritual knowledge of such things.  I take that sort of thing out of the equation. Anyone who claims such knowledge is not to be trusted.  Besides, the Buddha said "Be a lamp unto yourself". In other words, think for yourself!

An individual might not know the true extent of the consequences of their actions, but we can still try to take actions that we think will bring a positive effect on those around us, or if you are Discordian, a creatively chaotic effect on those around us, in the hopes that the ultimate result will be a positive one on us.

It seems utterly daft to me that anyone could deny that their actions have effects on those around them, for good or ill.  It also seems equaly daft, although perhaps slightly more understandable, that people would make decisions that have negative effects.

The Commander
DIA

[The Littlest Ubermensch]

Physics is a science, and therefore a self-correcting mechanism.  The same cannot be said for most non-scientific systems.

Of course not. I just don't like physics because it's much less fun than unscientific things.

You obviously haven't really understood physics, then.  That shit is weirder (and more fun) than most.

And Goedel's proof obviously stems for the fact that numbers (and, by extension, math) is an abstract concept and is therefore open to manipulation and paradox.

I know all of that. I was just joking around. And I certainly know how weird and trippy physics gets, but the actual leg work behind it, the calculations and logic puzzles, drives me nuts. In the immortal words of Butt Head, "I'm like, angry at numbers. There are like, too many of them and stuff."

[The Littlest Ubermensch]

Keep in mind I am talking theory. There is no accounting for individual naivete or stupidity.

Again, you are assuming some supernatural element to the equation.  You are correct in that the consequences of your actions cannot be known for certain, but that applies to everyone, not just yourself.  No one can know the full effect of ones consequences.  The examples of influence you give require the person attempting to influence someone to have or claim to have supernatural or spiritual knowledge of such things.  I take that sort of thing out of the equation. Anyone who claims such knowledge is not to be trusted.  Besides, the Buddha said "Be a lamp unto yourself". In other words, think for yourself!

An individual might not know the true extent of the consequences of their actions, but we can still try to take actions that we think will bring a positive effect on those around us, or if you are Discordian, a creatively chaotic effect on those around us, in the hopes that the ultimate result will be a positive one on us.

It seems utterly daft to me that anyone could deny that their actions have effects on those around them, for good or ill.  It also seems equaly daft, although perhaps slightly more understandable, that people would make decisions that have negative effects.

1. I didn't actually imply a supernatural element. I meant one that was made up, though I can see where that idea came from.

2. Once removing naivete, what you say is entirely true, though I disagree with you that people wouldn't want to make decisions that have negative effects. People are masochistic, as far as I've seen. Although perhaps it's a reflection of the inherent daft-ness of mankind to make intentionally negative decisions.

[Triple Zero]

And Goedel's proof obviously stems for the fact that numbers (and, by extension, math) is an abstract concept and is therefore open to manipulation and paradox.

don't say that too quickly. i'll read GEB again and i'll get back on this. a whole bunch of mathematical paradoxes are based on numbers and/or an illusionary concept of infinity, but i'm not sure if this is the case for goedel's, it seems to operate on a bit more fundamental level.

but i'll get back on it. (i kind of hope the paradox will allow me to -at least partially- invalidate one of the basic premises, like deduction or induction)

wait a minute wasn't the concept of induction already contested in some philosophical way?

let's just say i'll get back on it

[LMNO]

I didn't mean to say that Goedel based his proof on that numbers were abstract, I mean that since numbers are abstract, paradoxes can be generated within their game rules.

[AFK]

Numbers are arbitrary.

Just saying.

Humans have an incessant need to encapsulate every concept it conjures up.  
Of course I've just done that with these arbitrary symbols we call letters.  

What a viscous circle we weave.

[LMNO]

Yup.

[LHX]

the power of suggestion
the ability to create


we play with big loaded guns, and nobody seems to realize it or want to accept the responsibility of possessing these things



even i am still shooting my mouth off




specific symbols are arbitrary
symbols in general seem to be inescapably necessary

[AFK]

Of course.

Otherwise we'd all be just staring at each other.

And in some cases that may not be an inviting option.

Damn our restrictive inter-human communications systems.

[LHX]

Of course.

Otherwise we'd all be just staring at each other.

And in some cases that may not be an inviting option.

Damn our restrictive inter-human communications systems.

did i ever tell you you have nice eyes?