Immortality via Technology

submitted by TetrahedronOmega from (self.technology)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TetrahedronOmega[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Pertaining to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, your above comment on them is a misstatement. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems apply to finite-length proofs. Even with finite-length proofs, valid logical systems can never show a contradiction of themselves--if they did, then everything and its contradiction could be proven to be both true and false at the same time in those systems. Standard arithmetic and Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory would be completely worthless. Rather, given finite-length proofs, the logical system itself cannot be shown to be logically consistent--which is not the same as showing it to be inconsistent. However, if a proof of infinite length is allowed, then logical systems powerful enough to embed arithmetic can be shown to be logically consistent. This is a proviso that is often not mentioned in discussions of the Incompleteness Theorems.

So Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems are actually an a priori logical proof of the unavoidability of Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity (which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology), since the Incompleteness Theorems force the universe to be infinite, and also force the mathematical description of the universe to be of infinite length. Thus by your own acceptance of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, if you are to be logically consistent, then you are also forced to accept the logical unavoidability of the Omega Point cosmology.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because it is modal logic, Gödel applied in his "existence proof" of god. Another kind of logic than classical predicate logic. That is incomplete in every apply-able case you can define a "taste" of it. And you simply want to prove the existence of God with a contradiction proof. This obviously is a method you don't understand because you fucked up your math-classes when simulating to understand physics. Like most physicists do.

Hawking's understanding of singularities, which he fucked up most of the times, made me completely loose my initial respect of him, e.g. .

I bet you never even read something conclusive about what predicate logic actually is.

And then you define your singularity to be god. What if i instead define it (which i obviously can) to be a banana instead ?

Just accept that it is pointless what you call a thing to be. You call it god, i call it a singularity or a banana maybe. Because it is pointless to "discuss" these definitions we can't judge because we can't back-infer on them with these methods and tools. Especially not through constructing a "pseudo"-contradiction to axioms (the physical laws) and then concluding bullshit like this.

Stop simulating understand different kinds of logic and proving your own completely divergent insanites through observation in confounding them.

I already did that long before i read your post. But since it is absolute bullshit i don't claim it to be god or the truth or something like that.

You felt the urge to run completely naked through this forum while shouting "I"m your prophet, i'm your prophet: Because some replaceable lab-rat and Hawking had a contradiction".

Not me.

Every church is founded on a lie big enough, so to say. And you won't have yours. I hereby promise. Nobody who actually understands because he read into this and took a pencil to do something like this, will believe this hardcore-bullshit of yours.

Tickle your own nuts instead of forcing me to debunk your beliefs. Which obviously is harder than it sounds.

Or watch some porn finally to get some relief.