CHATPRIVACYDONATELOGINREGISTER
DMT-Nexus
FAQWIKIHEALTH & SAFETYARTATTITUDEACTIVE TOPICS
Math and reality Options
 
Exitwound
#1 Posted : 7/15/2020 7:49:21 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 555
Joined: 24-Dec-2017
Last visit: 16-Jun-2021
This concept won't be new for some, but I still wanted to share:

https://www.quantamagazi...theorems-work-20200714/

Quote:

But Gödel’s shocking incompleteness theorems, published when he was just 25, crushed that dream. He proved that any set of axioms you could posit as a possible foundation for math will inevitably be incomplete; there will always be true facts about numbers that cannot be proved by those axioms. He also showed that no candidate set of axioms can ever prove its own consistency.


It never ceased to amaze me, how mathematics correlates to psychedelic and spiritual revelations.
I think it is indeed, the true language of our reality.
 

Psychedelic news, articles, interviews and art from the DMT-Nexus and other sources.
 
cubeananda
#2 Posted : 7/15/2020 3:14:23 PM

jai


Posts: 758
Joined: 12-Feb-2013
Last visit: 29-Apr-2021
Amazing stuff!

 
downwardsfromzero
#3 Posted : 7/15/2020 8:13:00 PM

Peeing into the abyss

Chemical expertSenior Member

Posts: 5757
Joined: 30-Aug-2008
Last visit: 15-Jun-2021
Location: square root of minus one
It's wonderful - an incredibly precise tool that describes its own shortcomings by being unable to describe them.
Ora, lege, lege, lege, relege et labora

“There is a way of manipulating matter and energy so as to produce what modern scientists call 'a field of force'. The field acts on the observer and puts him in a privileged position vis-à-vis the universe. From this position he has access to the realities which are ordinarily hidden from us by time and space, matter and energy. This is what we call the Great Work."
― Jacques Bergier, quoting Fulcanelli
 
dragonrider
#4 Posted : 7/15/2020 8:52:59 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator

Posts: 2279
Joined: 09-Jul-2016
Last visit: 15-May-2021
Location: spacetime
I always wondered if the reason we tend to believe in the consistency of our own minds is because we're inconsistent.
 
Jagube
#5 Posted : 7/16/2020 12:45:10 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1015
Joined: 18-Feb-2017
Last visit: 16-Jun-2021
Thanks, in my logic course I didn't see a proof of Gödel's theorems, we only proved Turing's undecidability.

The article explains the proof of the first theorem well. In the second one it makes a bit of a leap, but I get it now. The missing bit is that if a set of axioms is consistent, you can prove in it that if it's consistent then G is true. And therefore you can't prove its consistency, because you could then prove G, which is not provable.
 
Jagube
#6 Posted : 7/16/2020 5:56:59 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1015
Joined: 18-Feb-2017
Last visit: 16-Jun-2021
This is a different approach to proving Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem, using Turing's computability theory:
A Computability Proof of Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem

Reductions are fascinating!
 
dragonrider
#7 Posted : 7/16/2020 10:44:44 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator

Posts: 2279
Joined: 09-Jul-2016
Last visit: 15-May-2021
Location: spacetime
These problems of incompleteness or undecidability always seem to arise when systems reach a certain level of complexity.

I don't think you have these kind of problems yet, with something as simple as propositional logic.

If i'm correct, godel also wanted to prove that it can sometimes be possible in complex formal systems, to prove the truth of something that is actually false, but he just never got to that. It would have been the incorrectness theorem.
 
Jagube
#8 Posted : 7/17/2020 4:55:15 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1015
Joined: 18-Feb-2017
Last visit: 16-Jun-2021
dragonrider wrote:
These problems of incompleteness or undecidability always seem to arise when systems reach a certain level of complexity.

Well, natural numbers (aleph zero) are the precise level of complexity at which they start arising.

dragonrider wrote:
If i'm correct, godel also wanted to prove that it can sometimes be possible in complex formal systems, to prove the truth of something that is actually false, but he just never got to that. It would have been the incorrectness theorem.

If you can prove something that's false, then everything is true and that makes it an inconsistent system. So I don't know what could be there beyond that?
 
dragonrider
#9 Posted : 7/17/2020 1:49:48 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator

Posts: 2279
Joined: 09-Jul-2016
Last visit: 15-May-2021
Location: spacetime
Jagube wrote:
dragonrider wrote:
These problems of incompleteness or undecidability always seem to arise when systems reach a certain level of complexity.

Well, natural numbers (aleph zero) are the precise level of complexity at which they start arising.

dragonrider wrote:
If i'm correct, godel also wanted to prove that it can sometimes be possible in complex formal systems, to prove the truth of something that is actually false, but he just never got to that. It would have been the incorrectness theorem.

If you can prove something that's false, then everything is true and that makes it an inconsistent system. So I don't know what could be there beyond that?

I don't know. It was graham priest who said it, so i suppose it would have had something to do with paradoxes.
On the other hand, he may have just wanted to find a glitch in the system, a singularity.
 
cubeananda
#10 Posted : 7/18/2020 8:56:27 PM

jai


Posts: 758
Joined: 12-Feb-2013
Last visit: 29-Apr-2021
I think I have found a neat way to demonstrate some of these principals.
This could be helpful to gain added perspective, that systems and their complexity are becoming less theoretical and more physical.

This visual loop.



It can be described as a visually perfect loop, and also the shapes can be perfectly represented in purely numerical and arithmetical terms.

To date, complex formal systems can be extremely arbitrary and as such are able to prove things are are not true. To put it simply, the image above is the essence of the incorrectness theorem.

The only issue is at least one of the values in the systems has to numerically represent a human "Yes."

(Sort of like the Turing test with which most of us are now familiar, thanks to the movie Ex Machina Smile)

In short, the image above appears to be a perfect loop, and it has been designed as such, but in reality the only way to generate the arithmetic required to produce that translation//rotation of points is by producing a much longer calculation. For the computer to generate this above image it would need the added rules of comprehending that the first and last frame are the same. For a human this is simpler. Rolling eyes But perhaps this is because a human mind is in reality more complex of a system, only it deals in much larger and less binary values at a time?
 
5 Dimensional Nick
#11 Posted : 1/6/2021 8:30:01 PM

"Full of multiversal flow!"


Posts: 246
Joined: 12-May-2013
Last visit: 28-Apr-2021
Location: UK Boi!
Fascinating stuff: i love it when math gets deep and trippy, thanks.

i have to leave this nugget of math here if u haven't heard of it, its one of my faves:

TREE(3), for a while a record holder of fastest growing function.

ok so huge number building functions and proofs use special symbols and special functions.

there is one called Knuth's up arrow.

put one arrow between two 3s and you have 16
put two arrows in and you have 65536
three arrows gives us a number with roughly 7 trillion digits in it!!!
i cant really easily describe the next one

TREE(x) grows faster though.

TREE(x) concerns trees that you can make from a certain number of colored seeds, the x in the function. you construct different trees and the number of possible unique trees gives you the output number (its actually a little more complicated but its too hard to explain for me)

TREE(1) is 1 (there is only one possible tree, the seed sitting alone)
TREE(2) is 3 (one of the seeds, the other one and the two connected to each other)
TREE(3) though is CRAZY. it IS finite but the number cannot fit in the observable universe even if every digit is written on a single particle. or even in a single planck volume. it probably cant fit in trillions and sextillions of universes but it is NOT infinite.

this blows my mind. but there's more:

using set theory you can prove that the proof in conventional maths that TREE(3) is finite, requires you to invent more functions (+, -, divide, multiply, e, squareroots etc.) than you can fit in the observable universe!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it just blows my mind that these conceptual structures are out there. things that dwarf the universe which is already so big it's hard to wrap ones head around.

and then there's always infinity!!!!!
"With every thought word and deed, each individual sets forth influence in their surroundings which is subject to no barriers and reaches every level of creation"

".....its our responsibility to uplift the consciousness of the ENTIRE fucking world......" Saul Williams, DJ Krust tune.
 
Jagube
#12 Posted : 5/23/2021 2:15:01 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1015
Joined: 18-Feb-2017
Last visit: 16-Jun-2021
An excellent video that gives examples of self-reference, starting from Cantor's diagonal argument, and works up to the intuition behind the proof of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
A delightful journey down the rabbit hole.

 
 
Users browsing this forum
Guest

DMT-Nexus theme created by The Traveler
This page was generated in 0.029 seconds.