Post 9rTQH37Um6FbPdfZNQ by bendersteed@pleroma.soykaf.com
 (DIR) More posts by bendersteed@pleroma.soykaf.com
 (DIR) Post #9rTPEbRAcxdT1U8rGC by zardoz@cybre.space
       2020-01-28T21:04:52Z
       
       1 likes, 2 repeats
       
       any time someone cites Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, Schrodinger's Cat(or really anything 'quantum'), or Non-Euclidean Geometry in any context not directly related to those things, there is a 90% chance that they don't know what they're talking about.
       
 (DIR) Post #9rTQH2hcKJYC7NYu2a by zardoz@cybre.space
       2020-01-28T21:07:42Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       for instance: Godel's Incompleteness Theorems apply *only* to formal languages and axiomatic systems. Human language is not a formal language and human knowledge is (probably) not axiomatic, so it has nothing to say about those things.
       
 (DIR) Post #9rTQH37Um6FbPdfZNQ by bendersteed@pleroma.soykaf.com
       2020-01-28T21:42:12.745571Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @zardoz The human knowledge is not axiomatic is a highly controversial issue. More likely it's a network of axiomatic systems.
       
 (DIR) Post #9rTQH3QzbbqYO6n8lc by zardoz@cybre.space
       2020-01-28T21:44:08Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @bendersteed I would not call it "highly controversial". At the very least we use fuzzy logic on a regular basis, which is enough to make Godel's theorems not apply.
       
 (DIR) Post #9rTQH3pS8fPdbyEftQ by abs@satania.space
       2020-01-28T22:01:57.726790Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @zardoz @bendersteed Can fuzzy logic not be formalized, though? If a brain could be simulated computationally, it could be embedded into a formal system.
       
 (DIR) Post #9rTQH4HoRE671vVK64 by Wolf480pl@niu.moe
       2020-01-28T22:14:51Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @abs @zardoz @bendersteed ok, but then it can happen that these things that are true but unprovable are outside of the simulation