Incompleteness of Science proves Truth Holder

[questfortruth]

so you haven't found a contradiction and proved Gödel right.

I am admirer of Dr. Gödel's mind. My aim was to prove him once again. Thank you.

 

[ratiocinator]

am admirer of Dr. Gödel's mind. My aim was to prove him once again. Thank you.

You misunderstand - you haven't proved Gödel right because there is no contradiction of the first proof not being 100% probable.

 

[blü 2]

No. It became trivially after the Gödel's proof of incompleteness theorem. Prior to Gödel it was not trivially, prior to Gödel any true statement will be proven (given infinite research time). After Gödel - NO. The Gödel made a revolution.

No, not "any true statement".

Instead ─
in logic and maths
1
IF you have a system of axioms
which are consistent
and can be generated by an algorithm
and are sufficient to demonstrate all available conclusions of the arithmetic of the natural numbers (ie the positive integers)
NONETHELESS there will be statements about the natural numbers which are true BUT CANNOT be shown to be true by the system.
2
Nor can the system demonstrate its own consistency.

Whatever the universe might be, nothing suggests it's a system of axioms.

 

[tas8831]

Application to Astrobiology:

Same line of reasoning could tell us, that even having perfect conditions for life on an Earth-like planet, one does not have perfect 100% probability of abiogenesis.


Application to Theology: because there is gap between Absolute Truth and proof, then:
1. There must be God, who holds the Truth: e.g, Physics is incomplete without Metaphysics.
2. God is Spirit of Absolute Truth, because He knows all about Riemann Hypothesis even without any proofs.

More in:

First Incompleteness Theorem - simple, math-less proof : viXra_revA

First Incompleteness Theorem New Way of Proving, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2005.0187​

Non sequiturs and grade school "logic" are really a bad way to 'prove' your deity is real.

 

[Yazata]

Application to Astrobiology

That's where I don't follow you. Goedel's theorems concern deductive systems of particular sorts. I fail to see their relevance to astrobiology.

Same line of reasoning could tell us, that even having perfect conditions for life on an Earth-like planet, one does not have perfect 100% probability of abiogenesis.

Sure. I expect that most astrobiologists would agree with that. There's probably a fortuitious aspect to the origin of life. (In my estimation, a huge fortuitous element.) Lots of things had to come together in just the right way to end up with the kind of molecular biology that we see here with Earth life. Of course other functionally similar sorts of life may or may not be possible as well. We have no way of knowing what's out there.

Application to Theology: because there is gap between Absolute Truth and proof, then:
1. There must be God, who holds the Truth

I don't see how that follows. If we are talking about propositions and assigning them truth values, there will need to be some kind of logical semantics that accomplishes that. The most common one is correspondence, such that the proposition 'Paris is the capital of France' is T iff Paris is indeed the capital of France. So... there would need to be states-of-affairs that our propositions are about, 'truth-makers' in the current parlance, but that needn't have anything to do with God.

e.g, Physics is incomplete without Metaphysics.

Sure, I agree with that too. Physics and its practice depend on many assumptions that aren't themselves part of or justified by physics. Mathematics is arguably the most obvious of them, along with things like induction and other principles of logical inference.

2. God is Spirit of Absolute Truth, because He knows all about Riemann Hypothesis even without any proofs.

If you say so. It's a sort of idea that's been traditional in philosophical theology of the more Platonic sort since antiquity.

​

 

[Yazata]

1. The reality has sense,

I don't know what that means. Reality is apparent to the senses? Reality is intelligible such that it makes sense? (It's the English language's fault.)

I'm guessing that you mean the latter.

I'm not entirely sure what kind of reality is necessary to make the intelligibility of reality possible. Logical consistency is presumably part of it.

2. Science is part of reality,

Ok.

3. Science has absolutely no sense, if it can not answer all questions.

Are you imagining science ultimately taking the form of a giant deductive system in which all true facts about reality (or their propositional expressions) are provable theorems?

I don't think that science ever needs to achieve that idealized form.

If the complete picture is missing, then the Flat Earthers could be right: the see round Earth as hallucination, or evil deception.

So unless we can logically deduce all scientific truths as theorems, anything goes?

What if we have other means for determining the truth of our scientific propositions? Empirical observation, experiment, methods like that?

4. Science can ask God. Thus, Science becomes complete. The Science has missed to get one Scientist: God.

How does one go about asking God?