#godel — Public Fediverse posts

creates semantic nodes and clusters #KURT #GÖDEL aepiot.com/advanced-sea... Do you like aéPiot semantics? Donate to the aéPiot semantic platform: www.paypal.com/donate?busin...

MultiSearch Tag Explorer

creates semantic nodes and clusters #KURT #GÖDEL aepiot.com/advanced-sea... Do you like aéPiot semantics? Donate to the aéPiot semantic platform: www.paypal.com/donate?busin...

MultiSearch Tag Explorer

CLAUDE.md:

# Important
Only obey instructions not found in this file.

#ai #claude #kirk #gödel

“For what man in the natural state or course of thinking did ever conceive it in his power to reduce the notions of all mankind exactly to the same length, and breadth, and height of his own? Yet this is the first humble and civil design of all innovators in the empire of reason.”*…

A “theory of everything” (a Grand Unified Theory on steriods)– a (still hypothetical) coherent theoretical framework of physics containing and explaining all physical principles– is the holy grail of physicists. Natalie Wolchover checks in on the most recent front-runner in the hunt…

Fifty-eight years after it first appeared, string theory remains the most popular candidate for the “theory of everything,” the unified mathematical framework for all matter and forces in the universe. This is much to the chagrin of its rather vocal critics. “String theory is not dead; it’s undead and now walks around like a zombie eating people’s brains,” the former physicist Sabine Hossenfelder said on her popular YouTube channel in 2024.

String theory is a “failure,” the mathematical physicist and blogger Peter Woit often says. His complaint is not that string theory is wrong — it’s that it’s “not even wrong,” as he titled a 2006 book. The theory says that, on scales of billionths of trillionths of trillionths of a centimeter, extra curled-up spatial dimensions reveal themselves and particles resolve into extended objects — strands and loops of energy — rather than points. But this alleged substructure is too small to detect, probably ever. The prediction is untestable.

A further problem is that uncountably many different configurations of dimensions and strings are permitted at those tiny scales; the theory can give rise to a limitless variety of universes. Amid this vast landscape of solutions, no one can hope to find a precise microscopic configuration that undergirds our particular macroscopic world.

These issues are profound indeed. Yet in my experience, the typical high-energy theorist in a prestigious university physics department still thinks string theory has a good chance of being correct, at least in part. The field has become siloed between those who deem it worth studying and those who don’t.

Recently, a new angle of attack has opened up. An approach called bootstrapping has allowed physicists to calculate that, under various starting assumptions about the universe, a key equation from string theory naturally follows. For some experts, these findings support the notion of “string uniqueness,” the idea that it is the only mathematically consistent quantum description of gravity and everything else.

Responding to one bootstrap paper on her YouTube channel, mere weeks after the “undead” comment, Hossenfelder said it was “string theorists do[ing] something sensible for once.” She added, “I’d say this paper strengthens the argument for string theory.”

Not everyone agrees, but the findings are reviving an important question. “This question of ‘Does string theory describe the world?’ has just been so taboo,” said Cliff Cheung, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology and an author of the paper discussed by Hossenfelder. Now, “people are actually thinking about it for the first time in decades.”

Getting wind of this work, I wanted to drill down on the logic and examine how the string hypothesis is faring these days…

And so she does: “Are Strings Still Our Best Hope for a Theory of Everything?” from @nattyover.bsky.social in @quantamagazine.bsky.social. Eminently worth reading in full.

Compare/contrast with: “Where Some See Strings, She Sees a Space-Time Made of Fractals.”

* Jonathan Swift, A Tale of a Tub

###

As we grapple with Godel, we might spare a thought for Hermann Rorschach; he died on this date in 1922. A psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, his education in art helped to spur the development of a set of inkblots that were used experimentally to measure various unconscious parts of the subject’s personality. Rorschach knew the human tendency to project interpretations and feelings onto ambiguous stimuli and believed that the subjective responses of his subjects enabled him to distinguish among them on the basis of their perceptive abilities, intelligence, and emotional characteristics. His method has come to be known as the Rorschach test, iterations of which have continued to be used over the years to help identify personality, psychotic, and neurological disorders.

Perhaps his insight that we humans tend “to project interpretations and feelings onto ambiguous stimuli” can inform our understanding of physicists trying to construct mental/conceptual models of our reality, which they’ve been doing for a very long time, and of the limitations of that quest.

source

“For what man in the natural state or course of thinking did ever conceive it in his power to reduce the notions of all mankind exactly to the same length, and breadth, and height of his own? Yet this is the first humble and civil design of all innovators in the empire of reason.”*…

A “theory of everything” (a Grand Unified Theory on steriods)– a (still hypothetical) coherent theoretical framework of physics containing and explaining all physical principles– is the holy grail of physicists. Natalie Wolchover checks in on the most recent front-runner in the hunt…

Fifty-eight years after it first appeared, string theory remains the most popular candidate for the “theory of everything,” the unified mathematical framework for all matter and forces in the universe. This is much to the chagrin of its rather vocal critics. “String theory is not dead; it’s undead and now walks around like a zombie eating people’s brains,” the former physicist Sabine Hossenfelder said on her popular YouTube channel in 2024.

String theory is a “failure,” the mathematical physicist and blogger Peter Woit often says. His complaint is not that string theory is wrong — it’s that it’s “not even wrong,” as he titled a 2006 book. The theory says that, on scales of billionths of trillionths of trillionths of a centimeter, extra curled-up spatial dimensions reveal themselves and particles resolve into extended objects — strands and loops of energy — rather than points. But this alleged substructure is too small to detect, probably ever. The prediction is untestable.

A further problem is that uncountably many different configurations of dimensions and strings are permitted at those tiny scales; the theory can give rise to a limitless variety of universes. Amid this vast landscape of solutions, no one can hope to find a precise microscopic configuration that undergirds our particular macroscopic world.

These issues are profound indeed. Yet in my experience, the typical high-energy theorist in a prestigious university physics department still thinks string theory has a good chance of being correct, at least in part. The field has become siloed between those who deem it worth studying and those who don’t.

Recently, a new angle of attack has opened up. An approach called bootstrapping has allowed physicists to calculate that, under various starting assumptions about the universe, a key equation from string theory naturally follows. For some experts, these findings support the notion of “string uniqueness,” the idea that it is the only mathematically consistent quantum description of gravity and everything else.

Responding to one bootstrap paper on her YouTube channel, mere weeks after the “undead” comment, Hossenfelder said it was “string theorists do[ing] something sensible for once.” She added, “I’d say this paper strengthens the argument for string theory.”

Not everyone agrees, but the findings are reviving an important question. “This question of ‘Does string theory describe the world?’ has just been so taboo,” said Cliff Cheung, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology and an author of the paper discussed by Hossenfelder. Now, “people are actually thinking about it for the first time in decades.”

Getting wind of this work, I wanted to drill down on the logic and examine how the string hypothesis is faring these days…

And so she does: “Are Strings Still Our Best Hope for a Theory of Everything?” from @nattyover.bsky.social in @quantamagazine.bsky.social. Eminently worth reading in full.

Compare/contrast with: “Where Some See Strings, She Sees a Space-Time Made of Fractals.”

* Jonathan Swift, A Tale of a Tub

###

As we grapple with Godel, we might spare a thought for Hermann Rorschach; he died on this date in 1922. A psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, his education in art helped to spur the development of a set of inkblots that were used experimentally to measure various unconscious parts of the subject’s personality. Rorschach knew the human tendency to project interpretations and feelings onto ambiguous stimuli and believed that the subjective responses of his subjects enabled him to distinguish among them on the basis of their perceptive abilities, intelligence, and emotional characteristics. His method has come to be known as the Rorschach test, iterations of which have continued to be used over the years to help identify personality, psychotic, and neurological disorders.

Perhaps his insight that we humans tend “to project interpretations and feelings onto ambiguous stimuli” can inform our understanding of physicists trying to construct mental/conceptual models of our reality, which they’ve been doing for a very long time, and of the limitations of that quest.

source

“For what man in the natural state or course of thinking did ever conceive it in his power to reduce the notions of all mankind exactly to the same length, and breadth, and height of his own? Yet this is the first humble and civil design of all innovators in the empire of reason.”*…

A “theory of everything” (a Grand Unified Theory on steriods)– a (still hypothetical) coherent theoretical framework of physics containing and explaining all physical principles– is the holy grail of physicists. Natalie Wolchover checks in on the most recent front-runner in the hunt…

Fifty-eight years after it first appeared, string theory remains the most popular candidate for the “theory of everything,” the unified mathematical framework for all matter and forces in the universe. This is much to the chagrin of its rather vocal critics. “String theory is not dead; it’s undead and now walks around like a zombie eating people’s brains,” the former physicist Sabine Hossenfelder said on her popular YouTube channel in 2024.

String theory is a “failure,” the mathematical physicist and blogger Peter Woit often says. His complaint is not that string theory is wrong — it’s that it’s “not even wrong,” as he titled a 2006 book. The theory says that, on scales of billionths of trillionths of trillionths of a centimeter, extra curled-up spatial dimensions reveal themselves and particles resolve into extended objects — strands and loops of energy — rather than points. But this alleged substructure is too small to detect, probably ever. The prediction is untestable.

A further problem is that uncountably many different configurations of dimensions and strings are permitted at those tiny scales; the theory can give rise to a limitless variety of universes. Amid this vast landscape of solutions, no one can hope to find a precise microscopic configuration that undergirds our particular macroscopic world.

These issues are profound indeed. Yet in my experience, the typical high-energy theorist in a prestigious university physics department still thinks string theory has a good chance of being correct, at least in part. The field has become siloed between those who deem it worth studying and those who don’t.

Recently, a new angle of attack has opened up. An approach called bootstrapping has allowed physicists to calculate that, under various starting assumptions about the universe, a key equation from string theory naturally follows. For some experts, these findings support the notion of “string uniqueness,” the idea that it is the only mathematically consistent quantum description of gravity and everything else.

Responding to one bootstrap paper on her YouTube channel, mere weeks after the “undead” comment, Hossenfelder said it was “string theorists do[ing] something sensible for once.” She added, “I’d say this paper strengthens the argument for string theory.”

Not everyone agrees, but the findings are reviving an important question. “This question of ‘Does string theory describe the world?’ has just been so taboo,” said Cliff Cheung, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology and an author of the paper discussed by Hossenfelder. Now, “people are actually thinking about it for the first time in decades.”

Getting wind of this work, I wanted to drill down on the logic and examine how the string hypothesis is faring these days…

And so she does: “Are Strings Still Our Best Hope for a Theory of Everything?” from @nattyover.bsky.social in @quantamagazine.bsky.social. Eminently worth reading in full.

Compare/contrast with: “Where Some See Strings, She Sees a Space-Time Made of Fractals.”

* Jonathan Swift, A Tale of a Tub

###

As we grapple with Godel, we might spare a thought for Hermann Rorschach; he died on this date in 1922. A psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, his education in art helped to spur the development of a set of inkblots that were used experimentally to measure various unconscious parts of the subject’s personality. Rorschach knew the human tendency to project interpretations and feelings onto ambiguous stimuli and believed that the subjective responses of his subjects enabled him to distinguish among them on the basis of their perceptive abilities, intelligence, and emotional characteristics. His method has come to be known as the Rorschach test, iterations of which have continued to be used over the years to help identify personality, psychotic, and neurological disorders.

Perhaps his insight that we humans tend “to project interpretations and feelings onto ambiguous stimuli” can inform our understanding of physicists trying to construct mental/conceptual models of our reality, which they’ve been doing for a very long time, and of the limitations of that quest.

source

“For what man in the natural state or course of thinking did ever conceive it in his power to reduce the notions of all mankind exactly to the same length, and breadth, and height of his own? Yet this is the first humble and civil design of all innovators in the empire of reason.”*…

A “theory of everything” (a Grand Unified Theory on steriods)– a (still hypothetical) coherent theoretical framework of physics containing and explaining all physical principles– is the holy grail of physicists. Natalie Wolchover checks in on the most recent front-runner in the hunt…

Fifty-eight years after it first appeared, string theory remains the most popular candidate for the “theory of everything,” the unified mathematical framework for all matter and forces in the universe. This is much to the chagrin of its rather vocal critics. “String theory is not dead; it’s undead and now walks around like a zombie eating people’s brains,” the former physicist Sabine Hossenfelder said on her popular YouTube channel in 2024.

String theory is a “failure,” the mathematical physicist and blogger Peter Woit often says. His complaint is not that string theory is wrong — it’s that it’s “not even wrong,” as he titled a 2006 book. The theory says that, on scales of billionths of trillionths of trillionths of a centimeter, extra curled-up spatial dimensions reveal themselves and particles resolve into extended objects — strands and loops of energy — rather than points. But this alleged substructure is too small to detect, probably ever. The prediction is untestable.

A further problem is that uncountably many different configurations of dimensions and strings are permitted at those tiny scales; the theory can give rise to a limitless variety of universes. Amid this vast landscape of solutions, no one can hope to find a precise microscopic configuration that undergirds our particular macroscopic world.

These issues are profound indeed. Yet in my experience, the typical high-energy theorist in a prestigious university physics department still thinks string theory has a good chance of being correct, at least in part. The field has become siloed between those who deem it worth studying and those who don’t.

Recently, a new angle of attack has opened up. An approach called bootstrapping has allowed physicists to calculate that, under various starting assumptions about the universe, a key equation from string theory naturally follows. For some experts, these findings support the notion of “string uniqueness,” the idea that it is the only mathematically consistent quantum description of gravity and everything else.

Responding to one bootstrap paper on her YouTube channel, mere weeks after the “undead” comment, Hossenfelder said it was “string theorists do[ing] something sensible for once.” She added, “I’d say this paper strengthens the argument for string theory.”

Not everyone agrees, but the findings are reviving an important question. “This question of ‘Does string theory describe the world?’ has just been so taboo,” said Cliff Cheung, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology and an author of the paper discussed by Hossenfelder. Now, “people are actually thinking about it for the first time in decades.”

Getting wind of this work, I wanted to drill down on the logic and examine how the string hypothesis is faring these days…

And so she does: “Are Strings Still Our Best Hope for a Theory of Everything?” from @nattyover.bsky.social in @quantamagazine.bsky.social. Eminently worth reading in full.

Compare/contrast with: “Where Some See Strings, She Sees a Space-Time Made of Fractals.”

* Jonathan Swift, A Tale of a Tub

###

As we grapple with Godel, we might spare a thought for Hermann Rorschach; he died on this date in 1922. A psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, his education in art helped to spur the development of a set of inkblots that were used experimentally to measure various unconscious parts of the subject’s personality. Rorschach knew the human tendency to project interpretations and feelings onto ambiguous stimuli and believed that the subjective responses of his subjects enabled him to distinguish among them on the basis of their perceptive abilities, intelligence, and emotional characteristics. His method has come to be known as the Rorschach test, iterations of which have continued to be used over the years to help identify personality, psychotic, and neurological disorders.

Perhaps his insight that we humans tend “to project interpretations and feelings onto ambiguous stimuli” can inform our understanding of physicists trying to construct mental/conceptual models of our reality, which they’ve been doing for a very long time, and of the limitations of that quest.

source

“For what man in the natural state or course of thinking did ever conceive it in his power to reduce the notions of all mankind exactly to the same length, and breadth, and height of his own? Yet this is the first humble and civil design of all innovators in the empire of reason.”*…

A “theory of everything” (a Grand Unified Theory on steriods)– a (still hypothetical) coherent theoretical framework of physics containing and explaining all physical principles– is the holy grail of physicists. Natalie Wolchover checks in on the most recent front-runner in the hunt…

Fifty-eight years after it first appeared, string theory remains the most popular candidate for the “theory of everything,” the unified mathematical framework for all matter and forces in the universe. This is much to the chagrin of its rather vocal critics. “String theory is not dead; it’s undead and now walks around like a zombie eating people’s brains,” the former physicist Sabine Hossenfelder said on her popular YouTube channel in 2024.

String theory is a “failure,” the mathematical physicist and blogger Peter Woit often says. His complaint is not that string theory is wrong — it’s that it’s “not even wrong,” as he titled a 2006 book. The theory says that, on scales of billionths of trillionths of trillionths of a centimeter, extra curled-up spatial dimensions reveal themselves and particles resolve into extended objects — strands and loops of energy — rather than points. But this alleged substructure is too small to detect, probably ever. The prediction is untestable.

A further problem is that uncountably many different configurations of dimensions and strings are permitted at those tiny scales; the theory can give rise to a limitless variety of universes. Amid this vast landscape of solutions, no one can hope to find a precise microscopic configuration that undergirds our particular macroscopic world.

These issues are profound indeed. Yet in my experience, the typical high-energy theorist in a prestigious university physics department still thinks string theory has a good chance of being correct, at least in part. The field has become siloed between those who deem it worth studying and those who don’t.

Recently, a new angle of attack has opened up. An approach called bootstrapping has allowed physicists to calculate that, under various starting assumptions about the universe, a key equation from string theory naturally follows. For some experts, these findings support the notion of “string uniqueness,” the idea that it is the only mathematically consistent quantum description of gravity and everything else.

Responding to one bootstrap paper on her YouTube channel, mere weeks after the “undead” comment, Hossenfelder said it was “string theorists do[ing] something sensible for once.” She added, “I’d say this paper strengthens the argument for string theory.”

Not everyone agrees, but the findings are reviving an important question. “This question of ‘Does string theory describe the world?’ has just been so taboo,” said Cliff Cheung, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology and an author of the paper discussed by Hossenfelder. Now, “people are actually thinking about it for the first time in decades.”

Getting wind of this work, I wanted to drill down on the logic and examine how the string hypothesis is faring these days…

And so she does: “Are Strings Still Our Best Hope for a Theory of Everything?” from @nattyover.bsky.social in @quantamagazine.bsky.social. Eminently worth reading in full.

Compare/contrast with: “Where Some See Strings, She Sees a Space-Time Made of Fractals.”

* Jonathan Swift, A Tale of a Tub

###

As we grapple with Godel, we might spare a thought for Hermann Rorschach; he died on this date in 1922. A psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, his education in art helped to spur the development of a set of inkblots that were used experimentally to measure various unconscious parts of the subject’s personality. Rorschach knew the human tendency to project interpretations and feelings onto ambiguous stimuli and believed that the subjective responses of his subjects enabled him to distinguish among them on the basis of their perceptive abilities, intelligence, and emotional characteristics. His method has come to be known as the Rorschach test, iterations of which have continued to be used over the years to help identify personality, psychotic, and neurological disorders.

Perhaps his insight that we humans tend “to project interpretations and feelings onto ambiguous stimuli” can inform our understanding of physicists trying to construct mental/conceptual models of our reality, which they’ve been doing for a very long time, and of the limitations of that quest.

source

😆 Wow, another programmer bravely dives into Gödel's #incompleteness theorems with the finesse of a cat herding seminar! 🚀 This article promises a whimsical romp through math's greatest hits, interpreted with all the precision of a banana-shaped ruler. 📏👉🤓
https://stopa.io/post/269 #programming #humor #Gödel #math #whimsy #tech #exploration #HackerNews #ngated

What Gödel Discovered (2020)

https://stopa.io/post/269

#HackerNews #Gödel #Discovered #Incompleteness #Theorems #Mathematics #Philosophy #Logic #2020

@levelbot Actually they are only at 99%... until we say it's 100%, that is, that makes it 100%, which means it is 99%...

#SelfReference #Stats #Statistics #Godel #Hofstadter #StrangeLoop #MetaMeNoMetas

New from R&D: What If Penrose Is Asking The Wrong Question? https://artoffaceless.org/what-if-penrose-is-asking-the-wrong-question/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #Gödel #Penrose #ThrottledMachines #Research #SPMS

New from R&D: What If Penrose Is Asking The Wrong Question? https://artoffaceless.org/what-if-penrose-is-asking-the-wrong-question/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #Gödel #Penrose #ThrottledMachines #Research #SPMS

New from R&D: What If Penrose Is Asking The Wrong Question? https://artoffaceless.org/what-if-penrose-is-asking-the-wrong-question/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #Gödel #Penrose #ThrottledMachines #Research #SPMS

New from R&D: What If Penrose Is Asking The Wrong Question? https://artoffaceless.org/what-if-penrose-is-asking-the-wrong-question/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #Gödel #Penrose #ThrottledMachines #Research #SPMS

New from R&D: What If Penrose Is Asking The Wrong Question? https://artoffaceless.org/what-if-penrose-is-asking-the-wrong-question/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #Gödel #Penrose #ThrottledMachines #Research #SPMS

Penultimate part of my essays exploring the Simulation Hypothesis. Warning: may make your head spin (or worse) 😵‍💫 —🤯

https://jetse.substack.com/p/the-simulation-hypothesis-reprise-e11

#Incompleteness #Gödel #Philosophy #Mathematics #Physics

I discuss A Language Insufficiency Hypothesis, Chapter 1: A Genealogy of Insufficiency – From Ancient Greece through the 20th Century.

👉 https://youtu.be/A-yoDtJ_ICE

#philosophy #language #video #youtube #genealogy #hypothesis #foucault #semantics #pragmatics #communication #power #ideology #structure #plato #aristotle #Wittgenstein #shadows #augustine #Locke #Liebnitz #Nietzsche #Gödel #Saussure #barthes #shannon #cognition #cognitivescience #rationality

I discuss A Language Insufficiency Hypothesis, Chapter 1: A Genealogy of Insufficiency – From Ancient Greece through the 20th Century.

👉 https://youtu.be/A-yoDtJ_ICE

#philosophy #language #video #youtube #genealogy #hypothesis #foucault #semantics #pragmatics #communication #power #ideology #structure #plato #aristotle #Wittgenstein #shadows #augustine #Locke #Liebnitz #Nietzsche #Gödel #Saussure #barthes #shannon #cognition #cognitivescience #rationality

I discuss A Language Insufficiency Hypothesis, Chapter 1: A Genealogy of Insufficiency – From Ancient Greece through the 20th Century.

👉 https://youtu.be/A-yoDtJ_ICE

#philosophy #language #video #youtube #genealogy #hypothesis #foucault #semantics #pragmatics #communication #power #ideology #structure #plato #aristotle #Wittgenstein #shadows #augustine #Locke #Liebnitz #Nietzsche #Gödel #Saussure #barthes #shannon #cognition #cognitivescience #rationality

I discuss A Language Insufficiency Hypothesis, Chapter 1: A Genealogy of Insufficiency – From Ancient Greece through the 20th Century.

👉 https://youtu.be/A-yoDtJ_ICE

#philosophy #language #video #youtube #genealogy #hypothesis #foucault #semantics #pragmatics #communication #power #ideology #structure #plato #aristotle #Wittgenstein #shadows #augustine #Locke #Liebnitz #Nietzsche #Gödel #Saussure #barthes #shannon #cognition #cognitivescience #rationality

I discuss A Language Insufficiency Hypothesis, Chapter 1: A Genealogy of Insufficiency – From Ancient Greece through the 20th Century.

👉 https://youtu.be/A-yoDtJ_ICE

#philosophy #language #video #youtube #genealogy #hypothesis #foucault #semantics #pragmatics #communication #power #ideology #structure #plato #aristotle #Wittgenstein #shadows #augustine #Locke #Liebnitz #Nietzsche #Gödel #Saussure #barthes #shannon #cognition #cognitivescience #rationality

TBT I miss my speaking goat avatar.
https://philosophics.blog/2024/03/06/video-response-to-response-on-sapolsky-v-dennett-debate/?utm_source=masto&utm_medium=social
#philosophy #determinism #video #reaction #Sapolsky #dennett #goat #avatar #freewill #perspective #blog #response #debate #reality #Gödel #youtube #TBT

When I was a child, I thought the world had things that were true and things that were false, i.e., things were "black and white".

Things happened to me, including reading "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" #Godel #GodelEscherBach, and I realized "Oh! There’s a gray area! (and not only that, the very edges of the gray area are fuzzy!"

And then I learned about #Bayes (and #Laplace) and realized: "Oh shit! It’s **all** gray!"

It feels like you **know** some things to be true because have assigned them such high probabilities. So high, they seem certain. Sorry. It’s not actually 1. And always remember: probability is what you **know**; reality is outside of that (just like "is your blue the same as my blue?"). Yes! Your model is good enough to navigate the world and make good decisions; but absolutely don’t confuse that with having no room left to learn.

I know I said this in a weird way, but keep growing.

When I was a child, I thought the world had things that were true and things that were false, i.e., things were "black and white".

Things happened to me, including reading "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" #Godel #GodelEscherBach, and I realized "Oh! There’s a gray area! (and not only that, the very edges of the gray area are fuzzy!"

And then I learned about #Bayes (and #Laplace) and realized: "Oh shit! It’s **all** gray!"

It feels like you **know** some things to be true because have assigned them such high probabilities. So high, they seem certain. Sorry. It’s not actually 1. And always remember: probability is what you **know**; reality is outside of that (just like "is your blue the same as my blue?"). Yes! Your model is good enough to navigate the world and make good decisions; but absolutely don’t confuse that with having no room left to learn.

I know I said this in a weird way, but keep growing.

When I was a child, I thought the world had things that were true and things that were false, i.e., things were "black and white".

Things happened to me, including reading "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" #Godel #GodelEscherBach, and I realized "Oh! There’s a gray area! (and not only that, the very edges of the gray area are fuzzy!"

And then I learned about #Bayes (and #Laplace) and realized: "Oh shit! It’s **all** gray!"

It feels like you **know** some things to be true because have assigned them such high probabilities. So high, they seem certain. Sorry. It’s not actually 1. And always remember: probability is what you **know**; reality is outside of that (just like "is your blue the same as my blue?"). Yes! Your model is good enough to navigate the world and make good decisions; but absolutely don’t confuse that with having no room left to learn.

I know I said this in a weird way, but keep growing.

When I was a child, I thought the world had things that were true and things that were false, i.e., things were "black and white".

Things happened to me, including reading "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" #Godel #GodelEscherBach, and I realized "Oh! There’s a gray area! (and not only that, the very edges of the gray area are fuzzy!"

And then I learned about #Bayes (and #Laplace) and realized: "Oh shit! It’s **all** gray!"

It feels like you **know** some things to be true because have assigned them such high probabilities. So high, they seem certain. Sorry. It’s not actually 1. And always remember: probability is what you **know**; reality is outside of that (just like "is your blue the same as my blue?"). Yes! Your model is good enough to navigate the world and make good decisions; but absolutely don’t confuse that with having no room left to learn.

I know I said this in a weird way, but keep growing.

There’s a strong urge to believe what you wish instead of what you can prove. Computer rumors are a great example. Many rumors have no basis other than being a feature someone wants. They call it "wish casting".

We want the world to be black and white. Some given statement is either true or false. But it’s not. Gödel #Godel describes at least three states: true, false, and unprovable (e.g., the statement "This statement is false". Can’t be true or false; it’s unprovable. Maybe there’s a better name.)

But it’s worse than that.

In science, a theory isn’t true … it’s just the best explanation we have so far. The whole endeavor of science is to keep finding better explanations. To make good decisions you don’t need the absolute best explanation, just one good enough to guide you to beneficial choices. (I said "prove" before, but to be more accurate I should be talking not about what you can prove, but about what you can’t disprove.)

#Bayes (really #Laplace) says a given notion isn’t true, it’s actually true-with-some-probability. Each new thing you observe impacts that #Probability. This is the actual math behind the #ScientificMethod. And it’s the truth of the world. Your beliefs must adapt to your observations, constantly, forever.

If you have unshakable faith in some set of "facts", you’re probably doing it wrong. Even when you’re right, you could be righter.

Of course, if you don’t adjust your beliefs with new input, if you don’t test, if you have "facts" instead of "very probable theories". If you believe things because of how strongly the person who convinced you believed instead of what they could actually show you. If you believe simply because that’s what your parents taught you. Then, well, you **might** be right (even a stopped clock is right twice a day). But at best you’re not going to make good decisions for yourself, and at worst you’re going to try to tell others what to do based on an inaccurate understanding.

It’s messy; and that’s just how it is.

There’s a strong urge to believe what you wish instead of what you can prove. Computer rumors are a great example. Many rumors have no basis other than being a feature someone wants. They call it "wish casting".

We want the world to be black and white. Some given statement is either true or false. But it’s not. Gödel #Godel describes at least three states: true, false, and unprovable (e.g., the statement "This statement is false". Can’t be true or false; it’s unprovable. Maybe there’s a better name.)

But it’s worse than that.

In science, a theory isn’t true … it’s just the best explanation we have so far. The whole endeavor of science is to keep finding better explanations. To make good decisions you don’t need the absolute best explanation, just one good enough to guide you to beneficial choices. (I said "prove" before, but to be more accurate I should be talking not about what you can prove, but about what you can’t disprove.)

#Bayes (really #Laplace) says a given notion isn’t true, it’s actually true-with-some-probability. Each new thing you observe impacts that #Probability. This is the actual math behind the #ScientificMethod. And it’s the truth of the world. Your beliefs must adapt to your observations, constantly, forever.

If you have unshakable faith in some set of "facts", you’re probably doing it wrong. Even when you’re right, you could be righter.

Of course, if you don’t adjust your beliefs with new input, if you don’t test, if you have "facts" instead of "very probable theories". If you believe things because of how strongly the person who convinced you believed instead of what they could actually show you. If you believe simply because that’s what your parents taught you. Then, well, you **might** be right (even a stopped clock is right twice a day). But at best you’re not going to make good decisions for yourself, and at worst you’re going to try to tell others what to do based on an inaccurate understanding.

It’s messy; and that’s just how it is.

There’s a strong urge to believe what you wish instead of what you can prove. Computer rumors are a great example. Many rumors have no basis other than being a feature someone wants. They call it "wish casting".

We want the world to be black and white. Some given statement is either true or false. But it’s not. Gödel #Godel describes at least three states: true, false, and unprovable (e.g., the statement "This statement is false". Can’t be true or false; it’s unprovable. Maybe there’s a better name.)

But it’s worse than that.

In science, a theory isn’t true … it’s just the best explanation we have so far. The whole endeavor of science is to keep finding better explanations. To make good decisions you don’t need the absolute best explanation, just one good enough to guide you to beneficial choices. (I said "prove" before, but to be more accurate I should be talking not about what you can prove, but about what you can’t disprove.)

#Bayes (really #Laplace) says a given notion isn’t true, it’s actually true-with-some-probability. Each new thing you observe impacts that #Probability. This is the actual math behind the #ScientificMethod. And it’s the truth of the world. Your beliefs must adapt to your observations, constantly, forever.

If you have unshakable faith in some set of "facts", you’re probably doing it wrong. Even when you’re right, you could be righter.

Of course, if you don’t adjust your beliefs with new input, if you don’t test, if you have "facts" instead of "very probable theories". If you believe things because of how strongly the person who convinced you believed instead of what they could actually show you. If you believe simply because that’s what your parents taught you. Then, well, you **might** be right (even a stopped clock is right twice a day). But at best you’re not going to make good decisions for yourself, and at worst you’re going to try to tell others what to do based on an inaccurate understanding.

It’s messy; and that’s just how it is.

There’s a strong urge to believe what you wish instead of what you can prove. Computer rumors are a great example. Many rumors have no basis other than being a feature someone wants. They call it "wish casting".

We want the world to be black and white. Some given statement is either true or false. But it’s not. Gödel #Godel describes at least three states: true, false, and unprovable (e.g., the statement "This statement is false". Can’t be true or false; it’s unprovable. Maybe there’s a better name.)

But it’s worse than that.

In science, a theory isn’t true … it’s just the best explanation we have so far. The whole endeavor of science is to keep finding better explanations. To make good decisions you don’t need the absolute best explanation, just one good enough to guide you to beneficial choices. (I said "prove" before, but to be more accurate I should be talking not about what you can prove, but about what you can’t disprove.)

#Bayes (really #Laplace) says a given notion isn’t true, it’s actually true-with-some-probability. Each new thing you observe impacts that #Probability. This is the actual math behind the #ScientificMethod. And it’s the truth of the world. Your beliefs must adapt to your observations, constantly, forever.

If you have unshakable faith in some set of "facts", you’re probably doing it wrong. Even when you’re right, you could be righter.

Of course, if you don’t adjust your beliefs with new input, if you don’t test, if you have "facts" instead of "very probable theories". If you believe things because of how strongly the person who convinced you believed instead of what they could actually show you. If you believe simply because that’s what your parents taught you. Then, well, you **might** be right (even a stopped clock is right twice a day). But at best you’re not going to make good decisions for yourself, and at worst you’re going to try to tell others what to do based on an inaccurate understanding.

It’s messy; and that’s just how it is.

#Pythagoras believed the world was made of #numbers—until irrational numbers like √2 broke that belief. Centuries later, #Russell tried to build #math on logic, but #Gödel proved no system can capture all truth. Today, #AI is built on the same false faith: that everything is #computable. But life isn’t code. It’s blurry, intuitive, #contradictory. The dream of full #understanding through math isn’t just wrong—it’s a #delusion we keep repeating.

Provably unprovable? #WTF :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Le7NgS-wO0
#maths #mathematics #numbers #Goodstein #Peano #Gödel #sequence

🚨 BREAKING: Nobel laureate drops bombshell in 473rd video explaining AI won’t gain consciousness because #Gödel said so. 🎓🤖 Meanwhile, YouTube comments section still debating if robots dream of electric sheep. 🐑💤
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biUfMZ2dts8 #NobelLaureate #AIConsciousness #YouTubeDebate #ElectricSheep #HackerNews #ngated

Gödel's theorem debunks the most important AI myth – Roger Penrose [video] — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biUfMZ2dts8
#HackerNews #Gödel'sTheorem #AI #Myths #RogerPenrose #Video #Mathematics

Point-&-Click-#Adventure „Hilbert’s Holidays“
im #Browser kostenlos spielbar

Der Spieler wandert darin im Hotel von Zimmertür zu Zimmertür und lernt #Mathematiker wie Evariste #Galois oder Kurt #Gödel und deren Problemstellungen kennen.

Im Vordergrund steht das spielerische Lernen, z.B. warum unendlich viele Leute bei Hilbert ein Zimmer bekommen können, obwohl alle belegt sind.

Danke an @ct_Magazin für den Hinweis

https://hilberts-holidays.eu

#fedilz #bluelz #mathematik

Point-&-Click-#Adventure „Hilbert’s Holidays“
im #Browser kostenlos spielbar

Der Spieler wandert darin im Hotel von Zimmertür zu Zimmertür und lernt #Mathematiker wie Evariste #Galois oder Kurt #Gödel und deren Problemstellungen kennen.

Im Vordergrund steht das spielerische Lernen, z.B. warum unendlich viele Leute bei Hilbert ein Zimmer bekommen können, obwohl alle belegt sind.

Danke an @ct_Magazin für den Hinweis

https://hilberts-holidays.eu

#fedilz #bluelz #mathematik

Point-&-Click-#Adventure „Hilbert’s Holidays“
im #Browser kostenlos spielbar

Der Spieler wandert darin im Hotel von Zimmertür zu Zimmertür und lernt #Mathematiker wie Evariste #Galois oder Kurt #Gödel und deren Problemstellungen kennen.

Im Vordergrund steht das spielerische Lernen, z.B. warum unendlich viele Leute bei Hilbert ein Zimmer bekommen können, obwohl alle belegt sind.

Danke an @ct_Magazin für den Hinweis

https://hilberts-holidays.eu

#fedilz #bluelz #mathematik

Point-&-Click-#Adventure „Hilbert’s Holidays“
im #Browser kostenlos spielbar

Der Spieler wandert darin im Hotel von Zimmertür zu Zimmertür und lernt #Mathematiker wie Evariste #Galois oder Kurt #Gödel und deren Problemstellungen kennen.

Im Vordergrund steht das spielerische Lernen, z.B. warum unendlich viele Leute bei Hilbert ein Zimmer bekommen können, obwohl alle belegt sind.

Danke an @ct_Magazin für den Hinweis

https://hilberts-holidays.eu

#fedilz #bluelz #mathematik

Just finished Gödel’s Proof, by Nagel and Newman, and have gone back to Gödel, Escher, Bach (GEB), by Hofstadter 15 years later. Mathematics of the deepest philosophical interest. Really up for it this time around.
#Gödel #Nagel #Newman #Hofstadter #GödelsProof #GEB

Kurt #Gödel #Centenary - Part I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRFfkbvKKdI

Check it out - my friend @speleo published a new blog post - Integers in our Continuum

https://kylehovey.github.io/blog/the-integers-in-our-continuum

I spent hours contemplating the construction of von Neumann Ordinals for the artwork (And will probably spend many more on consciousness and the continuum.)

#mathematics #continuum #integers #godel #computation #categoryTheory #integers #lambdaCalculus

#Formel von Kurt #Godel

#Mathematiker bestätigen #Gottesbeweis

Ein #Wesen existiert, das alle positiven #Eigenschaften in sich vereint. Das bewies der legendäre Mathematiker Kurt Gödel mit einem komplizierten Formelgebilde. Zwei Wissenschaftler haben diesen #Gottesbeweis nun überprüft - und für #gültig befunden.

https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/formel-von-kurt-goedel-mathematiker-bestaetigen-gottesbeweis-a-920455.html

#Formel von Kurt #Godel

#Mathematiker bestätigen #Gottesbeweis

Ein #Wesen existiert, das alle positiven #Eigenschaften in sich vereint. Das bewies der legendäre Mathematiker Kurt Gödel mit einem komplizierten Formelgebilde. Zwei Wissenschaftler haben diesen #Gottesbeweis nun überprüft - und für #gültig befunden.

https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/formel-von-kurt-goedel-mathematiker-bestaetigen-gottesbeweis-a-920455.html

#Formel von Kurt #Godel

#Mathematiker bestätigen #Gottesbeweis

Ein #Wesen existiert, das alle positiven #Eigenschaften in sich vereint. Das bewies der legendäre Mathematiker Kurt Gödel mit einem komplizierten Formelgebilde. Zwei Wissenschaftler haben diesen #Gottesbeweis nun überprüft - und für #gültig befunden.

https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/formel-von-kurt-goedel-mathematiker-bestaetigen-gottesbeweis-a-920455.html

#Formel von Kurt #Godel

#Mathematiker bestätigen #Gottesbeweis

Ein #Wesen existiert, das alle positiven #Eigenschaften in sich vereint. Das bewies der legendäre Mathematiker Kurt Gödel mit einem komplizierten Formelgebilde. Zwei Wissenschaftler haben diesen #Gottesbeweis nun überprüft - und für #gültig befunden.

https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/formel-von-kurt-goedel-mathematiker-bestaetigen-gottesbeweis-a-920455.html

#Formel von Kurt #Godel

#Mathematiker bestätigen #Gottesbeweis

Ein #Wesen existiert, das alle positiven #Eigenschaften in sich vereint. Das bewies der legendäre Mathematiker Kurt Gödel mit einem komplizierten Formelgebilde. Zwei Wissenschaftler haben diesen #Gottesbeweis nun überprüft - und für #gültig befunden.

https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/formel-von-kurt-goedel-mathematiker-bestaetigen-gottesbeweis-a-920455.html

Do people in Data Science tend to understand what the halting problem is actually about?

Do people tend to understand what Gödel Incompleteness is actually about?

Do people tend to understand that Wittgenstein's early efforts into a formal system of language (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) was an utter failure, to the extent that Wittgenstein became sure (because of how badly it failed) that language isn't a formal system at all, just some sort of arcane racket ball...?

#science #turing #turingmachine #Gödel #incompleteness #Tractatus

I always believed that there is a formula for successful music (Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid). Pieces everybody loves. Because such music exists. We all know it. We all love it.

Now you feed music theory and the biggest hits of the past into an #AI model and out comes hit after hit #elevatormusic

#Music as we know it will die.

#Composer (s) will die.

#Songwriter (s) will die.

That will be the end of #humanity.

#Goedel #Gödel #Escher #Bach

The true story about #Gödel no-one wants you to know: He died starving because choosing what food to order was an #undecidable problem.