*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Thanks for explaining Glen.
I am no logician or mathematician either. I just decided to re-look at
logic because Hubbard was so scathing of it and I found that "logic"has
many different applications.
Dennis uses Boolean logic. When I first discovered TROM - I had to find
out what the devil he was talking about.
Dennis takes the mind apart using Boolean logic. The mind is bound to
finite, physical universe values such as time and space and is aptly
addressed with those finite concepts.
However, we as "infinite" beings, have perceptions and abilities beyond
the finite constraints of this universe and have difficulty in
discussing the infinite using finite concepts.
I think I get what Leon was referring to now when he spoke of "primary
uncaused creation"
I hope that he answers my queries.
I agree that the mind, using itself, cannot fully understand itself. I
wonder sometimes whether there is any purpose in understanding the mind?
Best regards,
Martin
On 23 June 2012 22:28, Glen Strathy wrote:
I don't claim to be a logician or mathematician. But my understanding
is that Godel's work explains the halting problem in computer
programming, proving that no algorithm (based on logic) can ever
analyze a piece of software and discover whether it can produce an
infinite loop.
I believe the idea is that no logical system can be fully understood
from within itself, so no system of logic is ever complete - there are
always truths about the system that cannot be proven by referring to
the system only. It takes an outside observer to discern the missing
truths.
Kind of like, no mind can ever fully understand itself, because the
perspective it observes itself from will always be a blind spot.
By "power of logic" I simply meant its usefulness as a tool.
On 6/23/2012 3:42 PM, Martin Foster wrote:
*************
The following message is relayed to you [email protected]
************
On 21 June 2012 16:47, Glen Strathy wrote:
The power of logic is undeniable. Nonetheless, I think Kurt Godel
proved that logic has its limits.
Logic has no power - It is merely disciplined thinking.
Go"del's theorem's state: As I understand them??
Theorem 1.In any logical system one can construct statements that are
neither true nor false.
(Of course one can. Isn't this a variation of the liars paradox that
schoolkids play around with and which can be avoided in logic by not
making self referential statements which cause circles of logic)
and
Theorem 2: Therefore no consistent system can be used to prove its
own consistency. No proof can be proof of itself.
Does theorem 2 follow from 1? - It doesn't seem to? and why would you
want to prove postulates or axioms? Wouldn't a tautological system
in which one accepted the evidence of perception be more useful.
If you accept Go"del's incompleteness theorem then you must also
accept that the theorem itself is incomplete. lol
Martin
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.2180 / Virus Database: 2437/5089 - Release Date: 06/23/12
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
