Well the original question was whether there could ever come a time when we have figured everything out and there is nothing else to do, and the answer is provably no.
Now if you ask the additional question whether there could ever come a time when there is nothing else _interesting_ to figure out or do, of course that's more subjective because it depends on what you consider interesting; my answer is no, but I can't prove you couldn't have a different answer. On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Aaron Hosford <[email protected]> wrote: > All Godel's Theorem says is that there are statements that can't be proven > or disproven within an axiomatic system sufficiently rich enough to > represent arithmetic operations. It doesn't say how interesting those > statements are. Really, after the novelty has worn off, how important or > interesting is the statement "This statement cannot be proven within the > current axiomatic system"? Outside of the general implications for > mathematics as a field, who cares whether that particular statement can or > can't be proven? Just because there is a guarantee that there will always > be new things to discover doesn't mean they will be interesting. > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 8:21 PM, just camel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Neither the Halting Problem nor Goedel's incompleteness theorem say that >> there will always be new things to discover? Could you elaborate on that? >> Being unable to predict/proof things within system A does not say anything >> about whether you can actually discover new stuff ad infinitum? Just >> because I can not disproof the existence of God or turtles carrying the >> cosmos on their shoulders does not mean that I will discover anything? If >> we are living in a perfect simulation the system will not allow you to find >> out anything about the entity running those simulations for example. If you >> can not access anything outside of your framework than you will have a hard >> time discovering new things and Goedel's theorem will still hold true. >> >> >> On 03/14/2013 01:52 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: >> >>> The answer turns out to be no, not as a matter of opinion, but as a >>> matter of mathematical proof: check out Godel's theorem, the Halting >>> Problem etc. No matter how much you know, there will always be new >>> discoveries to make. >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------**------------- >> AGI >> Archives: >> https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/303/=now<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/rss/303/** >> 23050605-2da819ff<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/**member/?&id_** >> secret=23050605-53e85d0d <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> >> >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/1658954-f53d1a3f> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
