Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (66195)	12/13/2004 10:32:40 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

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