IWT6 Topic Poll (for prospective participants)

[ChubbyTeletubby]

Oprah, too. She expands and contracts like a star at the end of it's life cycle.

Amazing and truly fascinating.

[Hi! My name is: Katie]

I have to admit... I'm with Chubb Chubb on this not being my favorite topic for the contest. On the other hand, I am obsessed with the idea of being in the next contest. So I have been writing up a storm. So far I have a couple infinite endings... loops that go on and on, but I've got a lot more to do. I'm very much a linear writer, so having different endings doesn't come easily.


Anyway... here's what I have so far if anyone is interested...

ADMITTED- the tale of a man and a mental institution.

Let me know how I'm doing. If it sucks I'll start over.

[donteatpoop]

I don't care for the infinite story theme, but whatever; it was Ves's pick anyway. And she was nice enough to change the last one so I won't say a word about this one.

I'm gonna try and participate this time... But who knows. Life is busy lately.

[xnull]

Yazz, Godel is so the man and I've actually been spending my night reintroducing myself to the set theory required to understand him. Crazy shit.

I imagine Apoth dying like Godel did.

Time travel, bleh. So long as you guys aren't stuck on the whole 4th dimension nonsense. Timespace continuum, dumbfucks, not space layered up in a time cake.

We've already gotten things to travel much faster than light - but unfortunately we are incapable of making information or matter travel at these speeds. :-( (Hint: all of my information for this last paragraph comes from wikipedia and referenced links).

[apotheosis]

Yazz, Godel is so the man and I've actually been spending my night reintroducing myself to the set theory required to understand him. Crazy shit.

I imagine Apoth dying like Godel did.

Time travel, bleh. So long as you guys aren't stuck on the whole 4th dimension nonsense. Timespace continuum, dumbfucks, not space layered up in a time cake.

We've already gotten things to travel much faster than light - but unfortunately we are incapable of making information or matter travel at these speeds. :-( (Hint: all of my information for this last paragraph comes from wikipedia and referenced links).

The answer to all of your questions is here:

http://www.markgormley.com/




Edit: Should I continue adding the disclaimer whenever I post when I'm drunk?

[End Master]

Not really, since there's a certain time period of when you post and you're usually drunk during the night (Around or after midnight: eastern standard time). At this point we're all used to it.

Unless you start drinking in the mornings too which might throw some people off, but even then it would be obvious if you're drunk or not.

[Ryan_DuBois]

Yazz, Godel is so the man and I've actually been spending my night reintroducing myself to the set theory required to understand him. Crazy shit.

You took the words out of my mouth. Good old crazy Kurt Godel.

Brilliant mind. Maybe not my favorite mathematician, though.

But close.

I like Cantor and Euler, too.

Long live the art of mathematics!

[xnull]

For instance, it's been mathematically proven that there are true statements we'll never be able to prove true -- in other words, there are questions we'll never know the answers to.

Actually, this is only with a recursively definable axiomatic system, right? And humans seem to be pretty good at proving the truth of our Godel statements. So... perhaps human intelligent is complete but not consistent (this makes sense to me since human intelligence does definitely appear to be consistent)?

He only proved that our recursively definable axiomatic systems could not be both consistent and complete...

Heh, what if we can prove that some statement is a Godel statement? Then we can prove that the the statement is in fact true! But this seems to define logic, since Godel's proof came from a system like this itself...

Oh man, he's so cool.

[Ryan_DuBois]

Actually, this is only with a recursively definable axiomatic system, right?

It applies to any sufficiently complex formal system.

So... perhaps human intelligent is complete but not consistent

It's possible, but very few scientists (especially mathematicians) are willing to accept the possibility that we live in an inconsistent universe. Besides, what would it mean, if we did?

It's easier to just say that there are questions we'll never able to answer.

[xnull]

I wouldn't suggest that we live in an inconsistent universe (although people keep saying seemingly inconsistent things with quantum mechanics...), however, I realize that the human brain is just a system for discovering truths. I note that the human brain is very, very often inconsistent as a system.

If the human brain is inconsistent, it opens up the possibility of completeness, no?

[xnull]

Actually, "Are we inside of [the matrix]?" is one question we should never know the answer to, since we describe things in terms of empirical observations and probable truths. (Plant Decarte COGITO shit here).

This may be an example of a Godel statement.

And the fact that we can simulate a brain should suggest that the brain is in fact consistent, at least where the laws of the universe apply. So then our brains lend us an incomplete understanding of the universe?

So the Skeptics were right.

(I'm talking myself in circles now)

[xnull]

Aha! Godel's proof only applies to systems which involve infinite sets. But we don't consider the universe infinite at all, just so large that we might consider it infinite for many purposes.

This is the same with a computer system, which only has so much memory and for the human brain, which has its own physical limitations. So in theory if these systems work on infinite sets, they can either be consistant or complete and never both.

However, since the universe is [so far as we know] finite, the Godel proof only applies to abstract systems. With a theoretical computer I could prove every statement true of false by isolating each possible arrangement of the universe and testing it for some property.

Boo-yah!

[Ryan_DuBois]

Totally.

[ChubbyTeletubby]

And like, you know? 2 + 3 = 5. And stuff. And long division and stuff. Common denominators, too.

And stuff. Circumference. See? I can math things too.

Fucking college snobs. I don't need no damn educations.

[xnull]

In your defense my college has done nothing to teach me any of this except for pretend to teach set theory. ;-)

2 + 3 = -5 * pi * e * i