Terrence Howard on Reality

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Ero said:

I challenge you to quote me where you seem to think I trivialize the implications of Gödel or that here are no larger deeper implications.

I wasn't speaking of you in this thread, I was speaking more broadly of people in the field.

You don't know how much I have been gaslit by "science" type people about how Godel's theorems mean nothing beyond their strictly formal mathematical applications.

It's similar gaslighting that is done with regard to implications of quantum mechanics.

"Shut up and calculate" sort of mentality.

Edited June 18 by Leo Gura

[Ero]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You don't know how much I have been gaslit by "science" type people about how Godel's theorems mean nothing beyond their strictly formal mathematical applications.

I am perfectly aware. I have brought up Gödel's implications with other people from the math department, and I am yet to get a response different than "this is philosophy not math" or "this does not mean anything in the the field I care about"

That said, I still think the effort of being precise in your language when speaking specifically about mathematics would benefit you for the aforementioned reasons. For the sake of intellectual integrity. 

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's similar gaslighting that is done with regard to implications of quantum mechanics.

One of the reasons I moved away from physics and into mathematics. My belief is that the current QM interpretation is in fact what is the bottleneck in fundamental physics. Again, I totally understand. My uni's Theoretical Physics department is all String Theory BS. 

[Leo Gura]

@Ero Then we are on the same wavelength.

The sick irony is that if these logicians actually bothered to read Godel's writings on philosophy they would see that he himself was critical of people who do math and logic without any philosophical considerations. In fact, Godel attributes his theorems to his philosophical intuitions. And same goes for Einstein and many of the founders of QM.

Because to do groundbreaking work requires philosophical depth.

You cannot number-crunch your way into profound understanding.

Edited June 18 by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

11 hours ago, Ero said:

But it won't be Terence's or Salvijus's models that do that. 

 

[Davino]

I'm sure logicians are one of the professions that less get laid

[zurew]

On 2024. 06. 18. at 8:55 PM, Leo Gura said:

Because what I'm talking about requires a deeper understanding of the epistemic and metaphysical implications of Godel's theorems than is classically taught, which I have videos on. It requires you to actually use your mind to make new connections, not just parrot someone's theory.

Thats an interesting cheap shot from someone, who still doesn't have an understanding of prop logic and what a valid inference is (it would literally take  you roughly 2-3 days to learn it , but you still refuse to do it).

Being a critical thinker doesn't mean making logical jumps and  just freely inferring whatever you feel like will confirm your underlying biases - it means rigorously and extremely carefully investigating the logical entailments and implications of a statement or of a conclusion - regardless if that confirms or undermines your existing biases or beliefs.

 

Speaking of confirming ones underlying biases Leo, you are either intellectually dishonest (you are not honest about the limits of your argument - meaning you know that the philosophical implication you are talking about is not based on a deductive inference or in other words, the conclusion of your inference doesn't necessarily or inevitably follows from the incompleteness theorems) or you don't have an understanding of whats the difference between a deductive an inductive and an abductive inference and because of it, you think your inference is more powerful than it actually is.

You should learn from Gödel , because he was actually intellectually honest about the limitations regarding  the inference that he made about his own theorems'  philosophical implications ( he didn't pretend, that his conclusion about philosophy deductively follows from the incompleteness theorems):

Quote

https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/goedel-incompleteness/#PhiImpAll

Gödel drew the following disjunctive conclusion from the incompleteness theorems:

either … the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) infinitely surpasses the power of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems.

Gödel was nonetheless inclined to deny the possibility of absolutely unsolvable problems, and although he did believe in mathematical Platonism, his reasons for this conviction were different, and he did not maintain that the incompleteness theorems alone establish Platonism. Thus Gödel believed in the first disjunct, that the human mind infinitely surpasses the power of any finite machine. Still, this conclusion of Gödel follows, as Gödel himself clearly explains, only if one denies, as does Gödel, the possibility of humanly unsolvable problems.

It is not a necessary consequence of incompleteness theorems.

As a sidenote: The philosophical implications are still very much argued and nothing is settled on this as you originally tried to imply.

Now I will somewhat address your statements  about "technical details" and how you labeling yourself as  a big picture thinker won't get you out of the trouble and won't excuse your mistakes:

There is this weird idea in your mind, that if you are a big picture thinker, you don't need to apply any rigor in your thinking anymore and or that you can just get away with making loose inferences. You and some of the people on this forum mistake rigor to mean something like -  " focusing on all the irrelevant tiny details, regardless if that has almost no effect on the big picture or on the given proposition that we disagree on ", but thats just wrong and false. 

• Being rigorous means indentifying all the relevant details (relevant there means: details that could change the truth value of a given proposition) and then carefully going through each and every one of those relevant details and investigating the logical relationships between those details. You can make valid and invalid inferences and  If you care about making valid inferences (valid there means that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false) and if you care about reaching  valid conclusions about big picture propositions - you better apply as much rigor to your thinking as possible.  If you are not rigorous, you will mistake an invalid inference for a valid inference ( invalid inference - where the conclusion doesn't inevitably/necessarily follows from the premises - in other words, invalid inference is when there are logically possible scenarios where the premises that you infer from are true and your conclusion is false)
• Or if you don't want to hold yourself to such a standard, where you only let yourself to exclusively make deductive inferences, then you should be very honest and aware about the limitations of your non-deductive inferences.

 

Now to clear up why I asked for a source:

The reason why I asked for citation or for a reference is because you have made some claims and then tried to use the incompleteness theorems as a justification for some of those claims .  We have to be clear and careful - there is a giant difference between a source explicitly confirming something and between you making a loose inference to confirm your bias using a premise from the source (unless it is a deductive inference) . Now, in this specific case, the actual reason why thats problematic, is because the incompleteness theorems literally contradict (its not that they don't explicitly state some  of your conclusions , and that your conclusions in principle could be inferred from the incompleteness theorems,  but they literally contradict) some of your claims.

So one claim that they contradict is this: 

On 2024. 06. 18. at 7:11 AM, Leo Gura said:

If your formal system actually tried fo grasp any significant amount of reality it would contradict itself.

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

Peano arithmetic is provably consistent from ZFC, but not from within itself. Similarly, ZFC is not provably consistent from within itself, but ZFC + "there exists an inaccessible cardinal" proves ZFC is consistent because if κ is the least such cardinal, then Vκ sitting inside the von Neumann universe is a model of ZFC, and a theory is consistent if and only if it has a model.

"Peano arithmetic is provably consistent from ZFC, but not from within itself. "<--- this is a specific example where just because you cannot prove the consistency of a system within itself, doesn't mean that it is inconsistent

Both the Peano arithmetic and ZFC are considered to be very powerful formal systems  or in your words: "they are capable grasping a significant amount of reality"  and none of them are inconsistent/contain a contradiction as you assert that they should inevitably become inconsistent. So both of those examples directly contradicts your claim that "If your formal system actually tried fo grasp any significant amount of reality it would contradict itself."

Now, it is possible that you mean something different compared to what mathematicians mean by a 'powerful enough' formal/axiomatic system ), but then again, you come back to the issue of this: You cannot pretend that these theorems are directly justifying your philosophical biases unless, you can spell out a deductive inference (which I very highly doubt you can) that ends with whatever philosophical conclusion you want to get out of this.

Just as a sidenote , to me this just seems like a desperate attempt on your part to use the incompleteness theorems to try to justify some of your philosophical biases and thats why you don't want to admit that you are wrong and that you have made some incorrect statements. If your conclusions from this would deductively follow I would have 0 issue with it or if you would admit that your conclusion does not necessarily/inevitably follow I would also have 0 issue with that.

Just be intellectually honest and be rigorous.

 

Regarding the self-reference statements, I would be curious what would be the issue with these:

1) Set of all sets (S), where S contains itself

2) "This statement is true"

If there isn't any issue with the two above, then we have to sleep with the conclusion that not all self-referencing statements will inevitably lead to a paradox, just only a subset of self-referencing statements.

Edited June 19 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

@zurew My claims use higher consciousness, not deductive chimp logic. If you insist on deductive chimp logic then you will not understand many things I say. Things I say go beyond explication. Logic operates within the box of explication.

Godel's theorems are not proofs of what I say, what I say would be true regardless of his theorems. His theorems are merely a pointer to certain higher apsects of mind which you could come to recognize.

My claim was not that every self-referential set of statements is inconsistent but that if self-referential statements are allowed they can be used to create inconsistencies. Just because you don't use them to create an inconsistency demonstrates nothing.

You can use English to say consistent things or inconsistent things. Just because you only say consistent things so far doesn't mean a damn thing.

Arithmetic cannot be formally grounded in any logical system or set theory. Such attempts are delusional. The nuances of this are too complex to explain here. You'd need to take a college level class to start to understand it. And frankly I don't have all the nuances memorized in my mind because they are irrelevant to my work and I am not a logician.

Godel did not understand that Mind is infinite. You should know better.

You could just read Hofstadter's books and understand what I am pointing to. Hofstadter does a brilliant job explaining the deeper intuitions at the heart of Godel's theorems.

Edited June 20 by Leo Gura

[Davino]

48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

My claims use higher consciousness, not deductive chimp logic. If you insist on deductive chimp logic then you will not understand many things I say. Things I say go beyond explication. Logic operates within the box of explication.

Godel's theorems are not proofs of what I say, what I say would be true regardless of his theorems. His theorems are merely a pointer to certain higher aspects of mind which you could come to recognize.

Spoken like a true crocodile 🐊 

[Leo Gura]

@nuwu Research Gotlieb Frege, the downfall of logicisim and logical positivism, Russell's Paradox, the work of Douglas Hofstadter, Tarski's incompleteness theorems, paradoxes within set theory, paradoxes of infinity, and the necessity for meta-logics and meta-mathematics.

Basically, logic and mathematics is trying to grasp itself but it cannot ever do so because it is infinite, so it has to invent meta logics and meta mathematics to try to do so, and this goes upward ad infinitum. And all of that is still just one drop in the ocean of Infinity.

Edited June 20 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

10 hours ago, nuwu said:

Relative consistency signifies subset of combinatorial expressions are at least as consistent as reference, not absolute consistency.

Im not sure I undestand exactly what you mean by absolute consistency.

Do you mean something like a system is absolutely consistent if it can prove its own consistency within itself (without any need for an outside system to prove its consistency)? 

and by relative consistency I assume you mean a system that cant prove its own consistency within itself, but its consistency can be proven by another system.

Edited June 20 by zurew

[zurew]

Here is a question to the math and logic folks:

Im not sure whether the following conclusion necessarily/inevitably/deductively follows from the second incompletness theorem or not, because I have seen that theorem phrased in different ways and it is a little bit confusing to me how to apply negation to it properly. Because I understand, that under classical logic , its easy to just apply negation to a statement (if it is phrased in a clear way) and get what deductively follows from it.

So - When you have a sufficiently complex system that can prove its own consistency, does that system necessarily have to entail contradiction or not?

Some things that I ve gathered from the second incompleteness theorem so far:

1) there are sufficiently complex systems that cannot prove their own consistency, but just because they cannot prove their own consistency doesn't deductively follow that they are inconsistent (I have shown examples of this in my previous posts, where a system's consistency was shown by another system).

2) Sufficiently complex Inconsistent systems can paradoxically prove their own consistency, but this is the part im unsure about - just because sufficiently complex inconsistent systems can prove their own consistency, doesn't necessarily mean that only inconsistent systems are capable of proving their consistency (Only inconsistent system being capable of proving their consistency  maybe deducitvely follows from the second incompleteness theorem, but im not sure of it yet, this is why im asking whether it does or doesn't follow from it deductively)

 

Leo btw this is why I was pushing back on this specific thing, because it was unclear to me whether this: "sufficiently complex system that can prove their own consistency, necessarily have to be inconsistent or in other words necessarily have to contain a contradiction" deductively follows from the second theorem or not, because if it does, then I will obviously concede this to you (but it isn't obvious to me whether it is inductively or deductively follows from it , this is why I was asking you im my previous post to show how it follows deductively)

If its unclear what Im asking I will try to rephrase it.

Edited June 20 by zurew

[zurew]

"Jim Crow laws of mathematics" Lmao

[Leo Gura]

@zurew You and your white multiplication.

Edited June 21 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@zurew You and your white multiplication.

Neil deGrasse Tyson must have been deceived as well by white multiplication  - thats the only possible reason why he  rejects Terrence Howard's genius math.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Neil deGrasse Tyson must have been deceived as well by white multiplication

He's just an Uncle Tom. Pushing white man's science on us.

Edited June 21 by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

2 hours ago, nuwu said:

give benefit of doubt before ridiculing

There's no reason to ridicule anyone in life really. Only when people try to protect their egos do they succumb to such things. I hope one day people will understand that. 

Edited June 21 by Salvijus

[zurew]

Give what the benefit of the doubt?

That his math proof was rejected because of his race?

Of course im going to ridicule him for implying that, given that we already know the context around him and around his "math proof " and given that he didnt provide any evidence that would even remotely establish that he his idea was rejected because of his race or skin color.

 

And btw speaking of narcissists - the idea that his first go to is assuming racism rather than actually entertaining the idea that people reject his proof because he is wrong - is nothing other than him being maxxed out on narcissism.

Edited June 21 by zurew

[Salvijus]

Truth makes corrections but does not belittle. 

Truth has nothing to gain by demeaning others. Only ego hopes to gain something by such means

Edited June 21 by Salvijus

[zurew]

Guys ,stop virtue signaling about norms that none of you follow.

Truth has nothing to do with enabling endless idiocy either  and the ridicule was not to establish that his proof is wrong , but to laugh at his implication - knowing all the context and given the lack of evidence for racism.

None of you follow the idea that all claims have a 50% probability to be true and 50% to be false - Don't even try to pretend that  you don't have certain priors and epistemic standards   (if you guys want to , go ahead and show how in this specific case would be reasonable for him to assume racism as a reason for people rejecting his proof)

 

I doubt that you two reject ridicule in principle. And if you do, I disagree with that ,I think there can be good arguments made why ridicule is good or beneficial or appropriate ( given certain contexts) and being an enabler all the time is bad. 

Now,im sure Salvijus, that you would give a 50% probability to all the claims that Howard says and you wouldnt ridicule him for any of them.

Even if he would say that he is your father - you would go "hmm ridiculing is bad , and I cant 100% exclude that possibility,because no DNA test is completely bulletproof,  so he might be right"

And Nuwu, ridicule is very bad, but immediately throwing around the label of "narcissist" at multiple people on this forum ( not just this time but in the past) is cool, even though I doubt you could substantiate it . Which I dont care you can go ahead, but its nonetheless interesting, regarding applying your standards in a consistent way, because your standard about being charitable and giving the benefit of the doubt suddenly vanishes there and you choose one of the most negative interpretations from the possibility space of all logically possible interpretations.

Edited June 21 by zurew

[Salvijus]

53 minutes ago, zurew said:

Guys ,stop posturing about norms that none of you follow.

Truth has nothing to do with enabling endless idiocy either  and the ridiculing was not to establish that his proof is wrong , but to laugh at his implication - knowing all the context and given the lack of evidence for racism.

None of you follow the idea that all claims have a 50% probability to be true and 50% to be false - all of you have certain priors and epistemic standards (if you guys want to , go ahead and show how in this specific case would be reasonable for him to assume racism as a reason for people rejecting his proof)

 

I doubt that you two reject ridicule in principle. And if you do, I disagree with that ,I think there can be good arguments made why ridicule is good or beneficial or appropriate ( given certain contexts) and being an enabler all the time is bad. 

Now,im sure Salvijus, that you would give a 50% probability to all the claims that Howard says and you wouldnt ridicule him for any of them.

Even if he would say that he is your father - you would go "hmm ridiculing is bad , and I cant 100% exclude that possibility,because no DNA test is completely bulletproof,  so he might be right"

And Nuwu, ridiculing is very bad, but immediately throwing around the label of "narcissist" at multiple people on this forum ( not just this time but in the past) is cool, even though I doubt you could substantiate it . Which I dont care you can go ahead, but its nonetheless interesting, regarding consistently applying your standards, because your standard about being charitable and giving the benefit of the doubt suddenly vanishes there and you choose one of the most negative interpretations from the possibility space of all logically possible interpretations.

So much philosophy just to justify your frustration and ego...

Edited June 21 by Salvijus