Bruno, I reviewed the archive and found no reply.
I will repeat it again, hoping for your thoughts:

from July 2, 2006 (lightly amended and then addended)


I have found myself in this lifetime to be a staunch
OP-ponent and challenger to Godel's incompleteness theorems.   

In the way that they are structured - with the premises
Godel preset: of initial boundaries for what he was
about to design by 'proof' - his theorems -are- both 
sufficiently closed and constituently -accurate- in 
their conclusion and notions.

_But_ what I find disturbing about them is that they are
RELIANT on a more formative -presumption-, which presumption
enables an analyst to draw quite a -contrary result- to what
Godel announced. A self-discontinuity _within_ his theorems,
as it were.

Clearly, this:

He tacitly identifies any information resident -outside- any that 
current/known, as -eventually accessible, connectible, relatable-;  
even if it means restructuring known-information in regard to
alternative/new criteria and standards definitions, descriptions,
statements.   A presumption/definition of universal information
compatibility - of all information - whether known or unknown.

It is through this process of "add then re-evaluate" that new
paradigms are achieved.  But, it is dependent on the compatibility
of the -whole- scope of all the information present at that moment of
evaluation; and the eventual capacity to coordinate statements with
all content addressable by statements.

So, his thesis that at any given moment in time, not all information
is present or gathered, and that this makes for limited statement
making, where some evaluation statements in the data-set may instead
be reliant on future/other yet-to-be-included information .. is a 
worthy logical notion.   A closed system may not completely evaluate
itself -- some evaluations are indeterminant.

But, instead of focusing on the random evaluation moment, think
about what that presumption of 'eventual includability' dictates:

It heavily defines that we -can- (right now) state -something specific 
and projective- about the qualia and nature of knowledge and information
-- currently -beyond- the bounds of actual experience and encounter and

It also asserts:   information 'unknown' is compatible with and
eventually relatable with information 'known'.

The first foundation of Godel's '"I can't decide about that" Theorems'
is the contrary moot statement: 'I -can- decide about -everything- and
here's why';  -- which is a contradiction of logic.   That is: 

The "limited" set can make true-false statement about the -totality-
of existence (internal and external to its bounded known-ness); but,
it cannot guarantee it's own true-false statements (without some
added 'external' information, made eventually internal to a boundary).
At which point, some/all old non-decidables would be rendered decidable,
and, -new- undecidables would arise, apparently.   

I would say, the logic of future science and knowledge is
-incorrectly- contrained and defined by current interpretion
of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.  

Rather, the logic of future science and knowledge
is premised in Information and Performance Holism.
The unitary interactional and information accessible
quality of Existence.  Which fundamental notion is what
Godel ignores and rejects and tries to discredit.

Where, we CAN in fact make DECISIVE STATEMENTS -about that which-
the incompleteness theorems 'conclude': we should not be able
to say -anything- at all.  

You can absolutely place me in the community of thinkers 
who do not "swallow the incompleteness phenomena".  Because
my statements/logic are not incorrect and they do identify the
flaw/weakness/incorrectness in Godel.

He used not a tautology but a self-contradictory tautology logic.

        If A then not-A ; if not-A, then never an inclusive 
        (A & not A) as long as not-A exists; and since not-A
        always exists then A is not accessible to evaluate 
        not-A, or perfectly assess itself, (A); HOWEVER, A -can-
        assert (A&notA) and assess (A&notA) which includes (not-A).

All Godel did was give a validation for information
hiding and manipulation -- something useful to politicians
and economic manipulators and spiritual advocates: You can 
keep people trapped and powerless by limiting their
access to added (ostensibly important) information,
that would otherwise allow them to make decisions, which
an outer-heirarchy might not want them to make. 

Godel's Incompleteness Theorems didn't do Science or
Math or Logic any favors.

Nor the societal future for that matter.

The first order rule of 'universality' is
requisite non-excludable compatibility and 
consistency.  Even if subset incompatibilities
are conditionally allowed, (say matter and
anti-matter mutual anihilation) the fact that 
they interact at all indicates they -share-
'reaction' parameters; they may not survive
interaction but they are 'interactionable'
due to shared scope of qualia.

The most extreme form of universality is forms
that 'exist' but cannot even communicate (interact);
The possibility of co-existing in the same domain 
but perfectly non-interactive.  "Universality" allows
this -and- by doing so completes perfect self-definition.
Non-information transferability is umbrellaed in
'the universal' and affirms that there is an ultimate
holistic compatibility state for all extancy of any
sort or non-sort.

The ultimate/absolute "invariance rule".

After this, partitioning gets you to
mini-rules (like the Godel Incmp Thms).

But first and foremost: nothing exists absent
of co-existence or 'environment'. 

With the corrolary: nothing is perfectly self-definied -
companion existence is included even if sufficiently
distanced to be functionally disregarded for local purposes.

Which then leads to the logical deduction that no
'clone' or -seemingly- "duplicate" can ever be.
No 'perfect replicate' persona is possible -- without
the perfect replication (without ANY variance) of the
entire rest of the universe as well.  No matter how
uncannily close in replication, each individual must of
needs, be its -own persona-.

But the first order of business is to clean
house and get out from under Godel's mis-leading
authority & ideas.  ! 

Jamie Rose

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to