Easy proof for Inteligent Design

Any change in information is information in itself and information equality is both ways. But in this case it is only one way(I don't accept this however we assume your original argument correct). Means 1+1 have the meaning and information of 2 so 2 can easily be omitted and redundant. However if you put 2 instead of 1+1 we will lose information. We don't know that if 2 is for example 3-1 or 0+2 or 1+1,.... So we lost this bit. That's why they are claiming that it is not strictly tautology.

We get to physics later. So you accepted that logical truths are derived from reality, correct?

Your problem is that you got stuck in physics. As I said this is the nature of probability models that gives pseudo-deterministic results on something that is random. In fact what you are claiming here is that probability models are not related to random variables and everything is deterministic. Because the same can be applied to other fields that probabilities are in use. So this will collapse whole notion of random variables and probabilities in mathematics. Do you agree on this?I suggest you read this Determinism - Wikipedia. Also refer to my messages about incompleteness theorem. A totally deterministic logical system can't be build from within itself alone and needs some true axioms to start with from outside that is not in anyway dependent on the system.Edited by MrQ, : refrence

No! As I said the information in tautology should be redundant in a way you omit any part of redundant information still you have a copy. In this case, simply is not true. I gave you an example of a proper tautology. "I am alive as I have life". If you omit any parts of it it will contain the same amount of information. Both "I am alive" and "I have life" are complete and gives us the same information. In our example 1+1=2, simply it is not true. Apart from the fact that equality by itself is an additional information which is omitted.Apart from all these, incompleteness theory at least claims that you can't build a logical system from within itself consistently. Therefore, something should come from outside.

This is a joke! We are doing scientific discussion here. What do you mean by huge difference?! How much difference should be there for you to accept it! The fact is that these two are not the same in informational level either an epsilon difference or infinity still don't fit as a tautology. Ok correct the parts that I am missing. I copied for you from wikipedia which you accepted it.

Consistency means there is no contradiction between them. Now what? Basically what this theory is saying is that if you don't want to be inconsistent then you should have set of axioms that don't have any proofs. I guess if I remember it right, it was saying at least one axiom should be like that. This is of course natural because everything is build up based on axioms based on logic and axioms themselves therefore if original axioms are consistent then the rest should be consistent as well.

Actually I now believe that you are a robot! So I agree with you completely!

Logical Completeness is the idea that you can prove everything within a mathematical system to be either true or false. For long time mathematicians believed that the only reason some of the problems in math are not resolved is that still they still don't know the way and they had hope some day they eventually will. Godel proved that this belief is false and there are some theories in math that can never be proven by mathematics itself to be false or to be true. This is the idea of incompleteness. You can have a set of axioms that are inherently contradicting but you don't notice their contradictions. So having just axioms doesn't resolve the issue but you have to have consistent axioms. Also, the number of axioms are important. Because you can start with a couple and then later on realize there are some other statements that can't be proven and should be assumed to be truth. No Godel has solution for this. I guess it is called proof tree. As I said the contradictions might be hidden.

Well, I still don't understand why you rejected originally and accept now. The whole point I made was that there are sets of axioms which includes necessary truths as well that should be accepted as truth. These axioms are not from the system itself. So you were wrong to say they come from the system. As you said later they create the system. So what are the sources of them? subconscious mind? reality?

Ok now we are progressing after three pages of side debates! So are you saying human mind creates these axioms and necessary truths? Also does it mean that when there is no system then there is no axiom or necessary truths?

As I said before they are not tautologies(in strict sense) as if they were there were no use of them. Why would a formal system needs repetitions? There is something inside these necessary truths that are needed. These are information that seems very obvious for us and thus you categorize them as repetitions. But in fact they are so fundamental and important that the system won't work without them. This is mind that processes these information so inherently this is the starting point for the formal system. Even a simple equation like a+b=b+a contains information. Now if you are saying mind creates them does it imply that they are hypothetical or does it mean that they have roots in reality?

OK lets call this reality roots of necessary truth as 'the root'. Now how do you think that this the root manifest itself? can be in the general relations between forces? Remember, we already agreed that necessary truth were there since beginning. So there was not that much of physical world created.

It is not changing the subject. We wanted to see if traces of necessary truth are in physics as well. I mentioned that necessary truths are build in fabric of the universe. I am just showing which I claimed that. You already said that necessary truths have some roots in the reality in the form of relations between forces in physics. Here is what you said: So this relationship exists as following:physical objects or forces -> root of necessary truth ->our mind -> necessary truth presented in our languageDo you accept this or not?

Again you are denying the root of reality that we said include the basics of neccessary truth. I see nothing here that relates to that. Observation of physical phenomena is simply a process inside human mind. So I don't know why you seperated it. I am no longer interested in human mind part. As we concluded that the root of necessary truth are in physics. Now we have to work on that and see what it means and how necessary truths are manifested themselves?If you review our discussion on concrete and abstract concepts, there is one thing that I mentioned there which is very important:Axiom: In material world that we know, nothing is static. Everything changes.For example the apple example, as you said all atoms and molecules change every second but still we call it apple. What remains constant is the abstract part.But concrete root of necessary truths and physical laws don't change. Therefore, something outside matter is maintaining the special constant relationships which include the necessary truths and physical laws. Simply matter doesn't have the capability. It is created by mind and discovered by mind as it is higher in level than physics and goes in to abstraction. Exactly like the relation of software to the computer. The bits gets stored in memory but memory constantly changes as it is material. Software is logical abstraction system that is responsible to read these information do necessary error detection and correction to maintain and extract information from them again.In science nobody has worked on this subject. They assume that relations are there as a fact. But nobody asks why they are there and is it normal for matter itself to have such kind of relationship?! Also in brain is like that. We have memories stored in cells that constantly change. We have thoughts and ideas. These thoughts and ideas and memories don't change but our brain change constantly. You simply can not have anything like this unless you have a second layer abstraction over the material world. Simply matter by itself has no capability of having it.

Thanks for your participation. Please read the message I sent with title "Summery" in this thread.To me mind is software of the brain. It runs on the brain that's why it cease to exist without it. As when you run Windows on a PC, if you destroy PC, Windows inside will also get destroyed. But these are two complete different things. Software is information and matter is the mean to store it. To us computers are really redundant as the only reason we create the computers are to use softwares. If we can run our software on something else, we would be still happy.Now if we accept this, you can in theory extract mind software and run it on a silicon chip some day! Nobody said that brain is the only way you can run it. So we are living in information world and matter is just a game here. People tend to see concrete reality as the real thing but in fact what has value and important is the abstract parts of it.