Easy proof for Inteligent Design

quote:

---

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.

---

At least you've learned something ! There are some complications but that's the simple version.

quote:

---

No Godel has solution for this. I guess it is called proof tree. As I said the contradictions might be hidden.

---

So in fact when you talk about the axioms being consistent you mean the whole system being consistent. Good. We have made a little progress, at least.

quote:

---

Well, I still don't understand why you rejected originally and accept now.

---

If you understood you'd know that that wasn't true.

quote:

---

The whole point I made was that there are sets of axioms which includes necessary truths as well that should be accepted as truth.

---

They are only necessarily true within the system.

quote:

---

These axioms are not from the system itself. So you were wrong to say they come from the system.

---

I never said that, so you are wrong again.

quote:

---

As you said later they create the system. So what are the sources of them? subconscious mind? reality?

---

The axioms of a formal system are created by the conscious mind - specifically the mind of the human being who defines the system. That should be perfectly obvious to anyone who understands what a formal system is.

quote:

---

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?

---

Yes, you are beginning to understand but still making some silly mistakes. Formal systems are created by humans. The only necessary truths outside of formal systems are tautologous in at least some sense.

quote:

---

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?

---

Please pay attention to what I say. The sentence you quote explicitly says that it is NOT bout formal systems. The rest of your post is equally confused and wrong.

quote:

---

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?

---

I see that I am going to have to repeat myself. The definition of addition as commutative is created by the mind. It is intended to represent an aspect of reality. So the answer is both.
(But the reality is NOT a necessary truth !)

quote:

---

OK lets call this reality roots of necessary truth as 'the root'. Now how do you think that this the root manifest itself?

---

OK, so you want to change the subject from necessary truths to the nature of our reality - or, in another word, physics. The root there would be the behaviours of physical objects as we observe them.

quote:

---

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.

---

We agree that necessary truths were TRUE in the beginning. We also agree that they would be true even if your external mind didn't exist, so no help for you there. But of course, you've changed the subject away from necessary truths, and we are talking not of the beginning but of a time where humans were making observations and using them to construct abstracted models of reality.

quote:

---

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.

---

I am glad that you are finally getting around to answering my question, however I must point out that we have yet to see any support for your idea.

quote:

---

You already said that necessary truths have some roots in the reality in the form of relations between forces in physics.

---

Let us be clear, the "necessary truths" referred to are necessary within the models we construct to model physics, and they are necessary as a consequence of the definitions of the systems.

quote:

---

physical objects or forces -> root of necessary truth ->our mind -> necessary truth presented in our language

​

Do you accept this or not?

---

Not exactly. better would be:observations of physical phenomena -> human minds -> construction of systems to enable modelling physical phenomena -> theorems of these systems.Remember the theorems are necessarily true only within the systems where they are theorems.

quote:

---

Again you are denying the root of reality that we said include the basics of neccessary truth.

---

It seems that you have misunderstood, because I am simply restating my position.

quote:

---

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.

---

So now you are ONLY interested in talking about physics. Because the formal systems we have been talking about are all constructs of the human mind.

quote:

---

Axiom: In material world that we know, nothing is static. Everything changes.

---

Any reason why this should be an axiom ?

quote:

---

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.

---

By assuming a contradiction you can "prove" anything. If this lack of change contradicts your axiom then your axiom is false. If it does not your argument is a non-sequitur.

quote:

---

That's because of the way you put there. There should be something out there for your to observe. So physical reality is the key.

---

And that would be the "physical phenomena" that are observed.

quote:

---

Yes, we are no moving toward the original question's answers.

---

Looks more like you're assuming that I agree with your ideas despite my explicit statements to the contrary.

quote:

---

Because we don't have proof for it. Basically, it is based on inductive reasoning. Material world based on what we know from it now looks like this and behaves like this. This is based on our understanding of the it till now.

---

So you are now stating that the observed constants do NOT contradict your axiom. If they did your assertion here would be false. And since they do not your axiom is irrelevant.

quote:

---

I don't understand why it is not the other way around. Do you have a proof for any constants in material world so that show how such a chaos and changing world suddenly gives you a concrete constant?

---

Why don't the constants that have actually been observed qualify ? The very ones you use in your argument?

quote:

---

No, because we don't know any process other than abstraction to create them.

---

Nonsense. Abstraction doesn't create what is actually there.

quote:

---

We don't know how and why the constants of physics are created and they are there

---

Which won't help you either - arguments from ignorance are fallacious.

quote:

---

Also we don't know about why they relations should follow the necessary truths.

---

You mean that we don't know why the systems we create to model aspects of reality actually do model aspects of reality ? Woudn't the fact that we designed them to do just that be the reason ?

quote:

---

At least nothing in material world that I know of can create this. Unless you show me the way it works, I don't see matter creates anything constant with its inherent changes. But the only and the only process that I know in this world that create constants is the mind.

---

What actual constants are created by the mind ? I don't know of any.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I thought that you accepted the fact that necessary truths are there we just formulate and present them.

---

Tautologies Iin the broad sense) excepted, I specifically said that I did not. In fact I was quite clear in saying that things that are necessarily true in our models need NOT be necessarily true in reality.

quote:

---

We don't create them. So out model might not look exactly like the actual model but you can't deny that there is an actual model. The more we get close to it the more our model matches the reality.

---

Reality is not a model. And even assuming that you are correct the axioms of even a perfect model need not be necessary truths of reality, it is enough that they are true.

quote:

---

I didn't categorize constants to actual and non actual. Because there isn't any! Let's say what actual constant do you know so I can work base on that.

---

So now there aren't any constants, so there's no need of God to create them. Please, try to display some consistency.

quote:

---

You are presenting a looping argument here. First you accepted that necessary truths have some roots in reality

---

I said that the necessary truths in systems designed to model aspects of reality reflect those aspects that they are meant to model. Nothing more.

quote:

---

Think about result of your assumptions. What you basically mean is that necessary truths are hypothetical and product of our minds.

---

What I mean is that necessity is the results of our construction of a system or of a statement.

quote:

---

They are necessary because we hypothetically think that they are necessary. But in fact they are not! This is the main idea that you accepted before and now changing your mind.

---

I'm not changing my mind at all, I'm simply repeating things that you have apparently ignored. You, on the other hand keep changing your mind, as you did on the existence of constants.

quote:

---

Ok what you are saying here is that you in fact you want to distinguish between necessity of the truth and the truth themselves. You are claiming that their necessity comes from human mind but truthness is real. With the same analogy I would claim truthness is also hypothetical.

---

Of course that is not a true representation of my views and your response would hardly be unreasonable. I suppose you could retreat to relatiivty of truth - a common move of religious apologists faced with the fact that their views cannot be defended, but in doing so you give up any claim to have anything to say of any value.

quote:

---

As I said everything in real world is changing.

---

And you also said that there are things that aren't changing.

quote:

---

So reality is random and there is no model for it but we just force a model from our mind on it. Is that what you are saying?

---

Not at all. And I cannot see how you could get that impression from anything that I have actually written.

quote:

---

Then it is product of mind. As the system and its construction are the products of mind.

---

Yes and no. It really is objectively necessary within the context of the system.

quote:

---

I said constants are product of abstraction. Matter and energy don't have the capabilities to produce them. I never said constants don't exist.

---

Message 188
Seems pretty clear to me.And the whole idea that constants are the products of abstraction is still nonsense.

quote:

---

I am not saying truths are relative but it is you who is saying! You don't say it directly but consequence of what you say is the same.

---

Complete and utter rubbish. You are the one who wrote: When, of course there WAS no analogy.

quote:

---

Yes they are abstracts that are not changing and they are real.

---

Abstracts can't cause anything to happen. By definition. So whatever you are thinking of it's an aspect of concrete reality not an abstraction.

quote:

---

What do you mean yes and no?!

---

I mean that given the understanding that we are discussing the statement in the context of the system that it is objectively a necessary truth. And if you are not discussing it in the context of the system, what you are discussing is not really the same statement.

quote:

---

That's simple my friend. Show me one single constant that isn't as I said and I will be convinced.

---

Excepting the contribution of units I would say that the actual constants is a part of physical reality and any abstraction is simply a representation of it. So, the number of usable spatial dimensions (not the "curled up" extras proposed by string theory) would be a fact, not an abstraction. Can you name one that is truly the product of abstraction ? And explain HOW it is the product of abstraction, and the relevance of it to your argument ?

quote:

---

There was. You agreed the system is product of mind. Its necessities are product of mind. Then why on earth suddenly the truth in it correspond to reality?!

---

It doesn't. The statement is entirely within the system, can only be fully understood with reference to the system and WITH that understanding is necessarily true.

quote:

---

You yourself categorized software as abstract and I know I can print, change color of the screen and do everything from the software. So software is changing things around it.

---

I don't believe that I did say that. However you are not using the abstraction to do these things, you are using a concrete instance of the program. And THAT is what does things.

quote:

---

Of course, it controls everything through some limited and controlled gateways to physical world but the fact that the source and origin of influence starts from software is obvious. The same is true for mind.

---

While mind may be like software, without the ability to copy it - which we don't have - and create other concrete instances of a particular mind - which we don't have - it is pretty pointless t regard a mind as an abstraction. Each mind exists only as a single concrete instance.

quote:

---

Dimensions are actually totally abstract! Because in mathematics we create 1d and 2d things then we call 3d as 3d. But is there any really 1d or 2d shape?! No! Everything is 3d and you can't show it in reality. I accept the root of it is in the reality but as to my theory everything is like that. But the 3Dness is not real the way you described it.

---

We can't create truly 1 dimension or 2 dimensional objects because this universe IS 3-dimensional. That constant is a fact, not merely an abstraction.

quote:

---

I told you everything that we deal with is abstract

---

And you are wrong. We do not directly deal with abstractions at all - we cannot. We can only deal with concrete instances of the,

quote:

---

Then again you are saying that the whole concept of necessary truth are hypothetical.

---

I'm not saying that at all. What you mean is that real necessary truths aren't what you want for your argument.

quote:

---

There is no concrete instance

---

If you can use a computer program without running it on a computer or even having it installed then please explain how. Because I think that you are talking total nonsense.The copies of the program on disk and in memory are concrete instances. They are what you use., not some Platonic ideal of Firefox or IE.

quote:

---

It is not pointless. The fact that we can't copy it now doesn't mean we can never do it. Software is a software and consists of codes and instructions and information. So the nature of it is not material at all. It doesn't matter how you run it or where you run it.

---

If we could then it might a difference - but you haven't even showed that.

quote:

---

Ok tell me how many dimensions do we have in a black hole?

---

The question is unanswerable. We don't know what is "in" a Black Hole.Now are you going to answer me how you can use a computer program without a concrete instance of it? Most of us need the program to be installed and running. How do you manage to do without either of those ? Or even a copy on a CD ?