Home arrow static arrow Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /www/htdocs/w008deb8/wiki/components/com_staticxt/staticxt.php on line 51
Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    « Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Next »

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 1, 2004 8:02 AM (reply 15 of 635)



 
3. If one cell doesn't have any meaning then no
composition of cells has any meaning.

Yeah, that's exactly what it was about, and it was number 3 I was having a problem with. My counterexample was that a cell cannot speak, but I can. I am a composition of cells, so... what's up with that? Following the same pattern, it is possible that a cell does not have purpose (a claim which, BTW, you did not prove but only assumed) but a human has.
 

Posts:31,095
Registered: 4/30/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 1, 2004 8:20 AM (reply 16 of 635)



 
3. If one cell doesn't have any meaning then no composition of cells has any meaning.

Well, no. The letter "k" doesn't have any meaning but the collection of letters "Ulrika" does have some meaning.
 

Posts:1,135
Registered: 1/16/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 1, 2004 9:18 AM (reply 17 of 635)



 
3. If one cell doesn't have any meaning then no
composition of cells has any meaning.

Well, no. The letter "k" doesn't have any meaning but
the collection of letters "Ulrika" does have some
meaning.

Well, actually no also... "Ulrika" is just a collection of letters that we apply a meaning to, but by default it and of itself would not.
Not anymore so than say "Xaphraz"...
What does it mean, is it a name, a description, a place, basically it meaningless until we apply some meaning to it...
You could say that's someones name, but it could be something that I picked out of my alphabet soup...

- MaxxDmg...

- ' How should I know, I just wrote the d@mmed thing...'

 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 1, 2004 9:34 AM (reply 18 of 635)



 
Well, actually no also... "Ulrika" is just a
collection of letters that we apply a meaning to, but
by default it and of itself would not.

That's true of any word or symbol, but I don't agree that that implies it has no meaning. Only that it has no inherent meaning.
 

Posts:1,860
Registered: 12/14/00
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 1, 2004 9:41 AM (reply 19 of 635)



 
We were in the middle of a discussion involving an
Incompleteness Theorem and then some, but I
can't find the entire thread anymore? ... It has been
killed for some reason.

Last time this happened to me, I just searched Goolge the next day - it had a full archived copy of the thread in it, which I cut & pasted back into the forums (after a couple of quick regexps to tidy it up), for us all to read and continue the discussion.

You guys may want to do something similar?
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 1, 2004 9:44 AM (reply 20 of 635)



 
I think the argument has been recreated pretty well.
 

Posts:1,183
Registered: 1/23/02
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 1, 2004 9:49 AM (reply 21 of 635)



 
I think the argument has been recreated pretty well.

Oh yeah? I can's see a single obscenity unobsucred by asterisks. This thread is like The Best Of Jemma Jameson (Family Edition).
 

Posts:1,135
Registered: 1/16/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 1, 2004 9:54 AM (reply 22 of 635)



 
Well, actually no also... "Ulrika" is just a
collection of letters that we apply a meaning to,
but
by default it and of itself would not.

That's true of any word or symbol, but I don't agree
that that implies it has no meaning. Only that it has
no inherent meaning.

"slaomatahte" - what possible meaning can this have unless one applies meaning to it ?

All things may have a purpose (or maybe not ), but that does not mean that it has a meaning... And a bigger question... Does meaning have a meaning or does it just serve a purpose.
On that note, does a purpose have meaning, or is the meaning just an abstract description of a purpose.
Does it really mean anything, meaning is there any real meaning to it... Or is it just meaningless...

- MaxxDmg...

- ' I am not me ...'

 

Posts:1,183
Registered: 1/23/02
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 1, 2004 10:00 AM (reply 23 of 635)



 
I don't agree that that implies it has no meaning. Only that it has no inherent meaning.

To strengthen this statement, there is no such thing as inherent meaning.
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 1, 2004 10:07 AM (reply 24 of 635)



 
I don't agree that that implies it has no meaning.
Only that it has no inherent meaning.

To strengthen this statement, there is no such thing
as inherent meaning.

If you mean that there is no meaning indpendent from any observer, I agree. If you mean something else, you'll have to clarify. You HAVE TO! DO IT!! ;-)
 

Posts:1,183
Registered: 1/23/02
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 1, 2004 10:11 AM (reply 25 of 635)



 
To strengthen this statement, there is no such thing as inherent meaning.

If you mean that there is no meaning indpendent from any observer, I agree. If you mean something
else, you'll have to clarify.

This sums it up beautifully :-)

Yes, I meant the former. There is no message without an observer. Any boundary between what is the message and what is the observer is fuzzy and arbitrary.
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 1, 2004 10:22 AM (reply 26 of 635)



 
So, to sum up the thread:

It's been claimed that if object X does not have property Y, then a collection of X also does not have property Y. It has been claimed that this has been proven mathematically. Both these claims have been disputed, and the disputations have not been rebutted.

It has been agreed that all meaning is assigned by some observer.

Open questions: Is there any meaning to life? Obviously based on prior discussion any such meaning would have to be assigned by an observer. Is there any purpose to life? Note that I make a distinction between "purpose of life" and "purpose of a life," where the latter could mean "one particular person's goal(s) in life," and the former means life in general.
 

Posts:1,183
Registered: 1/23/02
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 1, 2004 10:30 AM (reply 27 of 635)



 
Open questions: Is there any meaning to life?

Whatever it is, it's the same as the meaning of rubidium, gravitation and alpha decay.
 

Posts:1,183
Registered: 1/23/02
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 1, 2004 10:41 AM (reply 28 of 635)



 
Whatever it is, it's the same as the meaning of rubidium, gravitation and alpha decay.

What we're missing in this discussion is a religious fundamentalist nut. Could someone play the part please?

:-)
 

Posts:31,095
Registered: 4/30/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 1, 2004 10:48 AM (reply 29 of 635)



 
It's been claimed that if object X does not have property Y, then a collection of X also does not have property Y. It has been claimed that this has been proven mathematically.

I don't see that claim in this thread. There was some talk near the beginning about statements of that form, but I didn't see any claims of mathematical proof. At least not what I would consider mathematical proof, there was perhaps some hand-waving and muttering about Gödel. Anyway the claim as stated is false. No number is uncountable but it is possible for a set of numbers to be uncountable.

PC²
 
This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    « Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Next »