Re: OT: reality (wasRe: Atlantean)

Gary Shannon scripsit:

> I've always prefered to think of Goedel this way; if
> there is a reason why some statement is true then that
> reason is an explanation for the truth of that
> statement.  "X is true because ..." is essentially the
> same as saying "the proof that X is true is ..."
> Therefore, things that are true but unprovable are
> true FOR NO REASON AT ALL!
Not at all.  There are reasons why the Goedel sentence G
is true; what Goedel's Proof says is that within the formal
system S in which G is embedded, no proof for it can be constructed.
It is straightforward to create a new formal system S', but
Goedel's method then operates again, giving us a new Goedel
sentence G' for which no proof can be constructed.  Nevertheless,
these sentences G, G', G'' do have the authority of reason
behind them, merely not proof within a formal system.

> People who's religious faith in the infallability of
> science are profoundly uncomfortable with the notion
> that something can be true for no reason, i.e.,
> without cause.  That's why they react so violently to
> stories of ESP or reincarnation, etc. etc.  They claim
> that since there's no reason why they should be true
> they cannot be true.
This is a caricature of skepticism, which indeed holds
that there is no sufficient reason to believe in the
truth of ESP claims.  There is, however, sufficient
reason to believe in the truth of G, viz. that it would
lead to a contradiction to hold it false.

> The only solution is to learn to be comfortable with
> uncertainty. "Look and it can't be seen.  Listen and
> it can't be heard. Reach, and it can't be grasped." -
> Tao Te Ching (ch:14)
Good advice anyhow.

--
John Cowan  jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com
"The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own
skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among
other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague."  --Edsger Dijkstra