Okay, jfred, let's ditch the old guy [deceased so can't argue back and it seems that I might be on a losing argument; and anyway, I only raised him because you originally told me about him, who I'd never heard of, nor that Escher bloke, though I had heard of Bach who I believe made boring music].
Godel/Goedel's theories are obviously bunk if they disagree with me, so I'll stick with my self-referential comments.
I don't think I ever did more than read a little bit about Goedel without understanding what he was on about. It seems I'm in good company - his name is dragged out all over the place, usually incorrectly. sm.luth.se
<The very point of Kurt Goedel's theorem is that there are no closed, self-defining systems. They always must base themselves on external 'givens' outside of the system itself.>
Of course there are closed, self-defining systems - we're inside a very gigantic one [said cosmos]. Assuming that "inside" has some meaning. Also, "big" is questionable in that said cosmos could be any size if compared with external stuff, which of course there isn't, or if there is, we have no access to it, unless we leak into it like Hawking radiation leaks out of a black hole.
Or something.
I am going to make like a chimp now. It's easier and more fitting for my talents.
Mqurice |
