Re: Godel's Incompleteness Theorems

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Jamie,

I think maybe I see where you are heading. Stated in terms of what you
affirm to be the case, rather than what you reject, how would you phrase it?

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of James N
> Rose
> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 11:49 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Godel's Incompleteness Theorems
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Here is my interpretation/argument:
>
> Extant Premise: We have no other tool for expressing the nature
> of existence (in such a way that we can navigate using mathematics)
> than formalism.
>
> Any formalism is incomplete in its ability to include absolute
> proofs or references because the contexts will never be large
> enough to identify absolute verifications/validations.
>
> Conclusion:  We can talk in vague inferences and suppositions
> about the universal/natural realm of things, but once we attempt
> to name and formalize, we fall into the premise category and
> become deficient in depiction.
>
> [analog imagery:  a collapsed wave function cannot embody
> all the aspects of the free-wave qm state.]
>
> We are forever trapped in "undecidable propositions".
>
>
> I reject and challenge certain crucial aspects of this,
> absolutely and unequivocably.
>
>
> Jamie