Is There Life Elsewhere in the Universe? Is There a God?

[Siamanto]

First, you have to base on something to construct a theory. I will remind you the simple fact from mathematical logic - Axioms (what you base your theory on) are NOT the unprovable statements Godel talks about. Each axiom is immediately provable, actually, in one step: just state the axiom. You see, the formal concept of proof needs a basis (such as axioms) and inference rules (such as "if A and A=>B then B"). So axioms can be viewed as atomic constructs in a theory, pretty much like variables and constants - they just must be there to start talking about a theory.

Do you have the slightest idea of what is an axiom? By definition an axiom is:
" A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate."

Do you have the slightest idea why Godel developed his theory? With all due respect, you sound like someone who has only a superficial - half baked - understanding of Mathematical Logic, Set Theory, Godel's work and maybe Mathematics!

You do have unprovable statements in each theory though, that is agreed upon. But not in math in general, because math is not a closed and finite set of theories, it's a word to denote a wide area of continuing studies.

Such as the Axioms of any formal system - including Mathematics!

[Siamanto]

Whenever I get bogged down in long boring language Siamanto is always there to clear it up.

Anonymouse,
Thanks!
What amazes me most is the need many have to convince themselves - more than others - that their beliefs are "sound, logical, reasonable, acceptable and legitimate." As if the community of 1 billion believers was not reassuring enough! Human, too human!

The emotional drive to label as "scientific" a Belief System reassures us in our innermost insecurities and comforts us in our most "originel" fears!
("originel" - as opposed to "original" - in French means close to the origins, earlier times, more primitive forms, etc. I don't know how to say it in English. Sorry!)

[rabinovich]

You seem to be willing to disagree! That's not of logical nature and I can' debate it!

1- Mathematics or the "Mathematical System" IS a formal system. Surprising that a "math graduate" ignores such an elementary truth! Do you understand what is a formal system?

I read this far and I disagree. First, don't get personal. Second, review your knowledge.

[rabinovich]

Siamanto, you need to learn basic manners first. I just feel disgusted reading an insulting text, that's not an intelligent debate.

Mathematics is not a formal system. Ask math professors at the nearby university or open up a textbook and read it yourself. I gave a simplified description of what math is and how it related to formal systems in my previous threads, so I won't repeat myself.

[rabinovich]

Well man, you are wrong in so many points I just don't know which one to address first. But I lost my respect to you, so I won't bother talking too long here. From the perspective of a formal system, axioms are immediately provable statements (in one step). Godel's unprovable statements have nothing to do with axioms (read it). Formal systems cannot be reduced to arithmetic. And most importantly, math is NOT a formal system, it's just a name of an evolving (ever-expanding) field of studies. Etc etc, not gonna bother reply everything you said.

Just don't be so rude to people you don't know. I have said everything right, up to every little detail, in all my previous posts. And I am sensing you are far less educated in the subject than I am.

[Siamanto]

Siamanto, you need to learn basic manners first. I just feel disgusted reading an insulting text, that's not an intelligent debate.

Mathematics is not a formal system. Ask math professors at the nearby university or open up a textbook and read it yourself. I gave a simplified description of what math is and how it related to formal systems in my previous threads, so I won't repeat myself.

Well man, you are wrong in so many points I just don't know which one to address first. But I lost my respect to you, so I won't bother talking too long here. From the perspective of a formal system, axioms are immediately provable statements (in one step). Godel's unprovable statements have nothing to do with axioms (read it). Formal systems cannot be reduced to arithmetic. And most importantly, math is NOT a formal system, it's just a name of an evolving (ever-expanding) field of studies. Etc etc, not gonna bother reply everything you said.

Just don't be so rude to people you don't know. I have said everything right, up to every little detail, in all my previous posts. And I am sensing you are far less educated in the subject than I am.

OK! Let's make a deal:
I'll improve my "basic manners" if you improve your reading skills, logical thinking and understanding of Mathematics/Formal Systems!

How does that sound to you?

[winoman]

Anonymouse,
Thanks!
What amazes me most is the need many have to convince themselves - more than others - that their beliefs are "sound, logical, reasonable, acceptable and legitimate." As if the community of 1 billion believers was not reassuring enough! Human, too human!

Sorry - not sufficient (that there are 1 billion believers or such) - first you cannot convince me that any significant fraction actually believe the same thing. Second there are obviously many who hold beliefs in contradiction to those beliefs held by others (so do they cancel each other out? Aren't you nervous that there are billions who believe differently then you - is that perhaps an indication that you will go to hell [or whatever] after all - because so many belive that you have it all wrong?) - and so what if there are more Buddists then Muslims or what have you - does having the most believers have any relevance on the truth? etc etc (there are/were more Muslim Turks then Armenian Christians - should Armenains have given up their faith because there were more in the Empire who believed differently?) And its typical of a follower type (ie believer) with follower logic to feel the need to be reassured that others believe as they do to justify their own beliefs. Those of us who think for themselves and are secure with themselves have no need for such crutches (false belief and reassurance/approval of/from others). etc So yes - I must be convinced. If I am not - then adopting a particualr religion/set of religious beliefs - because others have such - or out of fear (of hell/punishment) or what have you (self interest rather then truly internalizing the message and actually believeing in [the goodness etc] of such etc etc) - well I cal lthe latter hypocrisy (and this badge fits most so-called "believers" IMO)

[Siggie]

People lets remember to choose our words in a way that will effectively communicate the point and minimize insulting other people.

For example-- An alternative to "Do you even have the slightest idea what an axiom is?!" would be... "My understanding of what an axiom is is..."

Thanks.

[Anonymouse]

Sorry - not sufficient (that there are 1 billion believers or such) - first you cannot convince me that any significant fraction actually believe the same thing. Second there are obviously many who hold beliefs in contradiction to those beliefs held by others (so do they cancel each other out? Aren't you nervous that there are billions who believe differently then you - is that perhaps an indication that you will go to hell [or whatever] after all - because so many belive that you have it all wrong?) - and so what if there are more Buddists then Muslims or what have you - does having the most believers have any relevance on the truth? etc etc (there are/were more Muslim Turks then Armenian Christians - should Armenains have given up their faith because there were more in the Empire who believed differently?) And its typical of a follower type (ie believer) with follower logic to feel the need to be reassured that others believe as they do to justify their own beliefs. Those of us who think for themselves and are secure with themselves have no need for such crutches (false belief and reassurance/approval of/from others). etc So yes - I must be convinced. If I am not - then adopting a particualr religion/set of religious beliefs - because others have such - or out of fear (of hell/punishment) or what have you (self interest rather then truly internalizing the message and actually believeing in [the goodness etc] of such etc etc) - well I cal lthe latter hypocrisy (and this badge fits most so-called "believers" IMO)

To not believe, is itself another form of belief.

[winoman]

To not believe, is itself another form of belief.

so it is...so?* Some (incorrectly) claim that this makes it a religion. If so then I must be the most religious person on the planet - becuase i ascribe to the (non) belief in a great many gods and god combinations. Perhaps we actually share a religion mouse - what do you think? Non - belief of Zeus. I annoint you high priest - perhaps you wish to lead a non-prayer?


*reference to my point earlier about some beliefs being better then others (or at least based upon better reasoning/evidence/insight...etc)