Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

[brokenhead]

The current scientific view is that QM describes a highly deterministic universe.

That is just not correct. QM definitely does not describe the usual notion of a deterministic universe in any way. It is a probablistic formalism, which is by definition non-deterministic. But as such, it is extremely accurate and has so far been proven to be inviolable.

[Fujaro]

Gödel's Theorem is valid within the narrow parameters it sets for itself, but it doesn't apply to pure logic.

Well the parameters aren't that narrow really, for they are about every proof that can be written out on paper in a non- infinite sequence of statements that can be labeled to the natural numbers. That affects pretty much every theory in physics today. Also outside first order logic (where the theorem is valid) there is no definite proof that there is another kind of logic that is complete and consistent. So, the right conclusion here seems to be that Gödel has dealt a serious blow to the idea that reality ever in an absolute sense can be captured in logic. This is how most scientists and philosophers view the meaning of Gödel's theorem. But fair is fair, even in that expert opinion community of mathematicians and logicians there is some controverse. However, positing that Gödel's theorem is irrelevant and calling someone an idiot and troll just for the fact of bringing it up as relevant for the discussion on absolute truths is totally inappropriate and only shows closed-mindedness.
Hawking has concluded on basis of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (GIT) that no ultimate theory of reality can ever be found. Now, I don't side him in his absoluteness of stating this, but he is not alone.

Gödel's work is generally taken to show that Hilbert's Program cannot be carried out.

[Fujaro]

are you absolutely certain that logical truths say anything absolute about the real world?

It's not clear what you mean by the "real world", and I doubt that you are clear about it in your own mind.

By "real world", I think you mean the empirical world, which is the world about which we are uncertain of everything.

But if my uncertainty, or my existence, is part of the real world, and my logic tells me that I am certainly uncertain, or that I certainly exist, then my logical truths tell me something about the real world.

With Wittegenstein I say: The world is everything that is the case.

Is your existence a logical truth? This should mean that logic is a necessary and sufficiënt condition for your existence. Maybe it is a necessary condition (but in that case it seems very odd that GIT points to incompleteness), but it certainly is not a sufficient reason because people tend to die.

[Fujaro]

The current scientific view is that QM describes a highly deterministic universe.

That is just not correct. QM definitely does not describe the usual notion of a deterministic universe in any way. It is a probablistic formalism, which is by definition non-deterministic. But as such, it is extremely accurate and has so far been proven to be inviolable.

You are right there, I confess. But this only makes things worse for the believer in absolute truth about reality, for it means that reality cannot be fully described with logic and mathematics.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

are you absolutely certain that logical truths say anything absolute about the real world?

Yes.

It is quite easy to see why: if I answered no, I would be saying something absolute about reality, and would be contradicting myself.

I guess, if you don't believe that contradictions are always false, you could answer no, but then, to paraphrase Aristotle, I'd have no reason to even bother talking to you. (Godel's theorem is not relevant in respect to "trivial" logic like this, so don't you dare bring it up.)

And yes there are limits to QM, and these limits are well known (for very small timescales and spatial distances QM does not hold) but they are not related to the bigger questions about an electron moving through two slits at the same time. QM is a theory that very accurately describes the physical world and it is tested very thoroughly.

There are more limits than that. Are you so struck by selection bias that you can only choose two of the many problems with QM? You already pointed out more when you linked to the QM page... why not make a complete and thorough list of every problem listed in that? Next time, avoid this nasty little bias and don't gloss over any of them. Sure, those two problems are not related to the double-slit experiment, but most certainly some of the problems are.

So you are saying that scientific truths using very rigorous logic and mathematics are tentative?

When was this not the case? Scientific theories have always been, and will always be, less definitive than logic and mathematics.

Please let me know how you can be absolutely certain that it must be deterministic, though. Have you spoken to god lately?

Like many of the problems of Western philosophy, it's only a problem for Christians. Just like intelligent design, everyone else can ignore it.

It really proves itself: determinism is true for the same reason that the universe is non-causal, which is proven (empirically, at least) by the simple fact that science ever works at all. I was under the distinct impression that nobody of sound mind has thought free will was credible since Kant fell flat on his face trying to wish it into existence.

[Fujaro]

are you absolutely certain that logical truths say anything absolute about the real world?

Yes.

It is quite easy to see why: if I answered no, I would be saying something absolute about reality, and would be contradicting myself. I guess, if you don't believe that contradictions are always false, you could answer no, but then, to paraphrase Aristotle, I'd have no reason to even bother talking to you.

You're too funny. 'Uncertain' means that it can go either way, aint it? It is not an absolute statement. Just like falsifying a scientific statement.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

You're too funny. 'Uncertain' means that it can go either way, aint it? It is not an absolute statement. Just like falsifying a scientific statement.

No, I was doing something different than showing that it could go either way. Instead, I assumed "no" and showed that it would be contradictory. The answer had to be yes.

This is basic logic, taught in both first-year computer science and in first year philosophy. Godel's theorem does not apply to trivial logic like this.

[Fujaro]

You're too funny. 'Uncertain' means that it can go either way, aint it? It is not an absolute statement. Just like falsifying a scientific statement.

No, I was doing something different than showing that it could go either way. Instead, I assumed "no" and showed that it would be contradictory. The answer had to be yes.

This is basic logic, taught in both first-year computer science and in first year philosophy. Godel's theorem does not apply to trivial logic like this.

Back to school then. For when you answer 'no' to a question beginning with 'are you certain' it means that you are not certain. In other words that you have no definite absolute answer. First day in kindergarten will suffice.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

But, I answered yes. How much hot air are you pumped full of?

"I am not absolutely certain that absolute truths say anything about reality" would be just as much an absolute truth as "there are no absolute truths." Thus, it is contradictory. "Are you certain that you are not certain?", etc. to infinity. I don't play the stupid logical games that lead people to agnosticism.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Fujaro,

Is your existence a logical truth? This should mean that logic is a necessary and sufficiënt condition for your existence. Maybe it is a necessary condition (but in that case it seems very odd that GIT points to incompleteness), but it certainly is not a sufficient reason because people tend to die.

Existence is not the same thing as life. With such weak, fluid definitions, it's small wonder you hold logic in disdain.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

on empirical grounds euclidean geometry is turned down in favor of non-euclidean geometry as described by GR.

Turning down euclidean geometry? This is hardly worth commenting on. GR doesn't describe the non-euclidean geometry, this type of mathematics is used within GR.

You are describing the quest that the Logical Positivist undertook at the beginning of the 20th century. It ended with Gödel. First order logic in itself cannot be complete and consistent at the same time.

First of all we're talking only certain formal systems which you will be the first to admit that they don't constitute reality.

Secondly his incompleteness theorems also refer to higher, richer systems, supposedly ad infinitum, to provide consistency. And there you have it: truth always remains a higher notion than provability, no matter which system you'd formalize or theorize to exist in.

Thirdly, Gödel was quite a fanatic Platonist all of his life. His own theory didn't convince him very much, now did it?

Please supply a link to the particular posting where you have rebutted Gödel's Theorem and I will gladly look into it.

Rebutted?? I thought it was quite clearly written how the Theorem was no argument against a Platonic view (or the existence of some absolute). It can be just as well used to argue for it. It only rebuts your remarks as uninformed ones. I repeated the main arguments above.

What about Victor Danilchenko?

He has this impressive mental block popping up at times, no wonder with the emotions he relies on to force his way through every topic. I see the same emotional bias in you as well when you keep misreading and misunderstanding a lot of things. It was way more constructive with Victor though, at least he has more understanding of the science, and more humor too.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

[ So neither the wavefunction nor QED are identical to the electron. They are precise, quantitative conceptual tools that are used to describe electrons. And protons, and neutrons, and pions, well what have you.

So are you destroying your own argument here? :)

You said: "In the double slit experiment the same electron travels through both slits simultaneously! The identity has become a duality."

That specific experiment showed the behavior of a wave. A wave is by definition smeared out location wise because it's defined that way.

Where is the dual identity now that you asserted to be the case?

Can you give me an example of something that is not a quantitative conceptual tool to describe an event?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hawking has concluded on basis of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (GIT) that no ultimate theory of reality can ever be found. Now, I don't side him in his absoluteness of stating this, but he is not alone

And Roger Penrose went the opposite way with the same GIT. I don't side with him as well but he's not alone.

[Fujaro]

on empirical grounds euclidean geometry is turned down in favor of non-euclidean geometry as described by GR.

Turning down euclidean geometry? This is hardly worth commenting on. GR doesn't describe the non-euclidean geometry, this type of mathematics is used within GR.

Yes, turning down euclidean geometry as an accurate description of reality. Are you claiming the opposite? And when it's part of GR it's included aint it? No matter if it is described in full in GR. Making use of it is including it in the theory. The part about 'hardly worth commenting on' is a real joke. It was a major achievement of creative thinking you will never be capable of. Well, Diebert, show me GR in euclidean geometry then.

You are describing the quest that the Logical Positivist undertook at the beginning of the 20th century. It ended with Gödel. First order logic in itself cannot be complete and consistent at the same time.

First of all we're talking only certain formal systems which you will be the first to admit that they don't constitute reality.

See my answer to Kevin's post.

Secondly his incompleteness theorems also refer to higher, richer systems, supposedly ad infinitum, to provide consistency. And there you have it: truth always remains a higher notion than provability, no matter which system you'd formalize or theorize to exist in.

Well, it seems the light finally begins to shine on you. For this would mean that logic can't describe reality. Ever heard that before in this thread?

Thirdly, Gödel was quite a fanatic Platonist all of his life. His own theory didn't convince him very much, now did it?

Is this part of your rebuttal, an appeal to beliefs?
Well if that's all you have on GIT it's a rather pityfull sight, it is. You are not even making a dent. Some random googling might be more effective.

Please supply a link to the particular posting where you have rebutted Gödel's Theorem and I will gladly look into it.

Rebutted?? I thought it was quite clearly written how the Theorem was no argument against a Platonic view (or the existence of some absolute). It can be just as well used to argue for it. It only rebuts your remarks as uninformed ones. I repeated the main arguments above.

The main arguments, lol?!? You come emptyhanded and speak about main arguments, plural. Look Diebert, if it was that easy to wave away (thanks for the metaphore) a theorem that occupied the minds of Russell, Einstein, Van Orman Quine, Putnam, Hawking, Penrose, Dennett, Von Neumann, Nagel, PJ Cohen and many others, nobody would have bothered to begin with.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Let's see here.

1) Aggressive posturing without positive claims
2) Namedropping
3) Inability to confirm truths of basic logic while referencing advanced theories

If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em... eh, Fujaro? If you could provide some indication that you know what you are talking about, so I could be confident you weren't just bullshitting, it would be much appreciated. Right now, I'm having a hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt. Focusing on just one theory, rather than jumping from superficial easily-googled info about each, might work. Like, say, actually meeting Diebert's claims about Godel head-on.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yes, turning down euclidean geometry as an accurate description of reality.

It's still accurately describing the reality of the room I'm in quite sufficiently, thank you very much :)

What you don't realize is that euclidean geometry still holds, even in GR under certain conditions. Complete in the sense of being able to describe, scientificaly model all that we can currently measure, of course not.

Secondly his incompleteness theorems also refer to higher, richer systems, supposedly ad infinitum, to provide consistency. And there you have it: truth always remains a higher notion than provability, no matter which system you'd formalize or theorize to exist in.

Well, it seems the light finally begins to shine on you. For this would mean that logic can't describe reality. Ever heard that before in this thread?

It means that the logic within one formal system cannot prove the self-evident axioms. The axioms appear as 'truth' that are absolute within the formal system as defined. It's about provability, Fujaro, not about if logic "can describe reality". Describing reality is application of logic. For a detailed formal description one uses some formal system. For more fundamental realizations pure identification and non-contradiction suffice as they appear as axioms to our cognition.

Look Diebert, if it was that easy to wave away (thanks for the metaphore) a theorem that occupied the minds of Russell, Einstein, Van Orman Quine, Putnam, Hawking, Penrose, Dennett, Von Neumann, Nagel, PJ Cohen and many others, nobody would have bothered to begin with.

The thing is that I'm not waving it away. You are changing the words I wrote again. How can I have a rational discussion this way? If you do this everywhere you must have been kicked out a lot of places.

The main difference is that I have read and understood what most of these people are writing about, up to a certain level, but quite enough. And I believe it has been established by now, for any bored audience, that you're just randomly putting down sentences copied from elsewhere without having put serious thought in it. Probably you google too much :)

[Fujaro]

[ So neither the wavefunction nor QED are identical to the electron. They are precise, quantitative conceptual tools that are used to describe electrons. And protons, and neutrons, and pions, well what have you.

So are you destroying your own argument here? :)

You said: "In the double slit experiment the same electron travels through both slits simultaneously! The identity has become a duality."

That specific experiment showed the behavior of a wave. A wave is by definition smeared out location wise because it's defined that way.

Where is the dual identity now that you asserted to be the case?

The double slit experiment has been done with very low intensity electron beams. So low indeed that electrons particle by particle were delivered at the double slit. It's a particle leaving the nozzle where it is counted. The result is the same. The particle goes in and the probability of detecting the electron on the screen conforms to an interference pattern. This is a very significant and completely unexpected result when you expect nature to conform to Leibniz Principle, but I expect you'll wave it away just as easy as always. Not worthy of your comment whatsoever, sod those QM boys and girls.

Also you are turning your head for the argument that an electron IS NOT it's wave function.

Can you give me an example of something that is not a quantitative conceptual tool to describe an event?

This remark makes no sense. You are asking me to describ reality without mathematics. You are on the way in asking me to make the point I am already making: there is no guarantee that reality conforms to the logic we can think up.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

You are on the way in asking me to make the point I am already making: there is no guarantee that reality conforms to the logic we can think up.

Speak for yourself. This level of postmodern bullshit is as far away from the truth as those mystics that rail on and on about the terrors of scientism, or Christians who can't make sense of the universe without adding in free will.

Simple proposition: an electron is not an electron. Is that proposition true or false?

[Fujaro]

Yes, turning down euclidean geometry as an accurate description of reality.

It's still accurately describing the reality of the room I'm in quite sufficiently, thank you very much :)

What you don't realize is that euclidean geometry still holds, even in GR under certain conditions. Complete in the sense of being able to describe, scientificaly model all that we can currently measure, of course not.

You show little knowledge of physics. Euclidean geometry only holds as an approximation. GR gives a better/more accurate description of reality. As I have argumented before Euclidean geometry in combination with Newtonian mechanics is still accurate enough to project a trajectory of a space probe through the solar system. But it isn't accurate in describing the rotation of heavy stars, neutron stars, black holes and many other phenomena right here in our universe, in our reality. There are massive black holes in the center of every galaxy in this universe, this reality we live in. And you say euclidean geometry still holds. Which universe are you talking about? Do you have the luxury of a separate one? Or do you prefer local truths for universal ones?

[Fujaro]

You are on the way in asking me to make the point I am already making: there is no guarantee that reality conforms to the logic we can think up.

Speak for yourself. This level of postmodern bullshit is as far away from the truth as those mystics that rail on and on about the terrors of scientism, or Christians who can't make sense of the universe without adding in free will.

Simple proposition: an electron is not an electron. Is that proposition true or false?

Just show me the definite proof that deductive logic applies to reality. There is no postmodernism involved. I loath it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The double slit experiment has been done with very low intensity electron beams.

Yes, been there and actually performed it myself. Did you ever? It's quite a common experiment.

Also you are turning your head for the argument that an electron IS NOT it's wave function.

And I've never stated such. This is how you discuss, it seems, telling other people what they said so you can pontificate about their errors!

If you only cared to actually read my post I was talking about! The observed interference indicates a wave form while other observations of the same subject [eg light] indicate a behavior conform that of a particle [eg photons].

The observation at all times confirms to A=A because it's not contradicting itself. There are many things in nature that can appear to us in totally different, even opposite ways at different times, angles, circumstances etc.

Can you give me an example of something that is not a quantitative conceptual tool to describe an event?

This remark makes no sense. You are asking me to describ reality without mathematics.

My point is that your description will always be an application of logic at some level. What's out there, non-described, doesn't matter here really. The application might change, your math changes, your concepts shift and you might be able to describe a lot more. But my point never changes.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

words to Diebert

Euclidean geometry isn't used to describe the surface of a sphere. Yet, for some reason, travel from point A to point B on the Earth's surface is calculated using Euclidean geometry. Does this blow your mind?

Just show me the definite proof that deductive logic applies to reality. There is no postmodernism involved. I loath it.

Nearly all postmodernists hate postmodernism. It doesn't mean they aren't guilty of it.

Deductive logic is not proven, because, as Diebert said, truth comes before proof.

If p implies q, and q is not true, then p is not true. Why? Well, it's a fact of reality. Get used to it. It is a law that follows from the law of non-contradiction.

Such syllogisms are the basis of all proofs, and asking to prove it assumes that it has already been proven. Modern scientists -- including physicists -- invent hypotheses and deduce the consequences of the hypotheses using syllogisms. Then they test these consequences. This is the model for all testing. They get theories of out this, and these theories only hold water so long as they fit with known laws (such as non-contradiction).

[Fujaro]

Let's see here.

1) Aggressive posturing without positive claims
2) Namedropping
3) Inability to confirm truths of basic logic while referencing advanced theories

If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em... eh, Fujaro? If you could provide some indication that you know what you are talking about, so I could be confident you weren't just bullshitting, it would be much appreciated. Right now, I'm having a hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt. Focusing on just one theory, rather than jumping from superficial easily-googled info about each, might work. Like, say, actually meeting Diebert's claims about Godel head-on.

Just show me any conclusive positive claims Diebert is making about GIT. So far we have:
1) There is an appeal to the beliefs of Gödel... well seriously
2) there is an appeal to the restrictions of GIT's application. Which I have commented on in a post to Kevin. In short: a) there are restrictions to GIT but all current scientific knowledge is affected and b) there is no proof for completeness and consistency of alternative logical approaches
3) there is an appeal to the incompleteness of provable logic, confirming my point

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What you don't realize is that euclidean geometry still holds, even in GR under certain conditions. Complete in the sense of being able to describe, scientificaly model all that we can currently measure, of course not.

Euclidean geometry only holds as an approximation.

In the same way E = mc^2 is an approximation, correct.

And you say euclidean geometry still holds. Which universe are you talking about? Do you have the luxury of a separate one? Or do you prefer local truths for universal ones?

It still holds, as I said, under certain conditions. Perhaps you should ask me which conditions I meant. Oh no, that would mean you have to read what I'm writing. Can't have that.

[Fujaro]

words to Diebert

Euclidean geometry isn't used to describe the surface of a sphere. Yet, for some reason, travel from point A to point B on the Earth's surface is calculated using Euclidean geometry. Does this blow your mind?

Just show me the definite proof that deductive logic applies to reality. There is no postmodernism involved. I loath it.

Nearly all postmodernists hate postmodernism. It doesn't mean they aren't guilty of it.

Deductive logic is not proven, because, as Diebert said, truth comes before proof.

If p implies q, and q is not true, then p is not true. Why? Well, it's a fact of reality. Get used to it. It is a law that follows from the law of non-contradiction.

Such syllogisms are the basis of all proofs, and asking to prove it assumes that it has already been proven. Modern scientists -- including physicists -- invent hypotheses and deduce the consequences of the hypotheses using syllogisms. Then they test these consequences. This is the model for all testing. They get theories of out this, and these theories only hold water so long as they fit with known laws (such as non-contradiction).

Truth comes before proof. That sounds familiar, something like: god is the first cause. Well OK you have a religion, so what?