Hi all,
Relax and be patient while reading, as below I am claiming that one of your famous mathematicians is wrong, that I am right, and on top of all of this bragging, that all of you can prove that to yourselves after you read what is written below, and...I am no famous mathematician...I am no one really...but...none of you are someone either...or do you think you are?
We start with some examples, regarding the argument I am making here.
Examples (the formal argument is provided under the challenge section)
for a child to walk, a child balances its body on its feet, and for the child to learn to walk, the child has to be able to prove that to itself, within its system, meaning once the child learns how to balance as described earlier, the child thinks, "I think I get how to walk",
or otherwise said,
"you have to balance your body on your feet to walk" is an axiom in order to be able to walk, and even children can prove this to themselves within their system.
"Most birds can fly" is an axiom in the reality I observe, that birds seem to be able to prove to themselves.
"If you are a bird, and you really sense that you can fly from your nature, then you can learn how to really fly", is an axiom that I observe birds are able to prove to themselves within their own system.
But, if we look at humans again, since one may say that animals are off limits for what we are discussing...
being able to make sense of the world around you by just observing and talking about it, is an axiom humans follow in order to have fun in reality
as when humans are talking nonsense, they haven't thought yet, how reality...really makes sense,
and other humans can prove that to them, so that...
then they can prove what makes sense to themselves, within their own system, after thinking about what was said alone, without bothering other humans with nonsense, before they prove it to themselves...by thinking about it.
Challenge <-- Prove to me that I am wrong (examples are provided above, if you don't understand below)
Why say that the following phrase is nonsense?
“The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system.”
Because:
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.
Or if you want it explained in any other way...let's experiment with physics:
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some-thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical.
Isn't it? If it doesn't seem to you, here's why I think that:
Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening, appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.
5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has hap-pened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still happens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.
Or if you are still unconvinced, and you want it explained using casual language:
After someone says that "the consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system", can someone prove to oneself that in order for one to relax, one simply starts relaxing and waits, or is this inconsistent with someone's logic, and then someone cannot relax? Why?
If you want to naturally relax, you simply start doing that(relaxing) and you wait... and you can notice yourself after doing that again and again, that this is an axiom to relax, that you can consistently prove to yourself.
If you want to understand the logic of relaxing, the logic of relaxing is to have a simple common word which describes the starting point of naturally relaxing...if you want to use more words to describe that starting point of naturally relaxing, then this is less relaxing...than simply relaxing.
If you don't want to understand the nature of relaxing, don't worry too much about it, just relax and do something else.
Links regarding the challenge. Check on section "incompleteness theorem" number 2 (links are provided so that you understand what we are discussing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel
Kind regards, and thank you for your patience,
no one.
p.s.
"Ok, but WHY ARE YOU SENDING THIS TO US?", someone may ask.
Use the links below, follow the money, and...be patient:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.250991363520389&type=3
Relax and be patient while reading, as below I am claiming that one of your famous mathematicians is wrong, that I am right, and on top of all of this bragging, that all of you can prove that to yourselves after you read what is written below, and...I am no famous mathematician...I am no one really...but...none of you are someone either...or do you think you are?
We start with some examples, regarding the argument I am making here.
Examples (the formal argument is provided under the challenge section)
for a child to walk, a child balances its body on its feet, and for the child to learn to walk, the child has to be able to prove that to itself, within its system, meaning once the child learns how to balance as described earlier, the child thinks, "I think I get how to walk",
or otherwise said,
"you have to balance your body on your feet to walk" is an axiom in order to be able to walk, and even children can prove this to themselves within their system.
"Most birds can fly" is an axiom in the reality I observe, that birds seem to be able to prove to themselves.
"If you are a bird, and you really sense that you can fly from your nature, then you can learn how to really fly", is an axiom that I observe birds are able to prove to themselves within their own system.
But, if we look at humans again, since one may say that animals are off limits for what we are discussing...
being able to make sense of the world around you by just observing and talking about it, is an axiom humans follow in order to have fun in reality
as when humans are talking nonsense, they haven't thought yet, how reality...really makes sense,
and other humans can prove that to them, so that...
then they can prove what makes sense to themselves, within their own system, after thinking about what was said alone, without bothering other humans with nonsense, before they prove it to themselves...by thinking about it.
Challenge <-- Prove to me that I am wrong (examples are provided above, if you don't understand below)
Why say that the following phrase is nonsense?
“The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system.”
Because:
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.
Or if you want it explained in any other way...let's experiment with physics:
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some-thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical.
Isn't it? If it doesn't seem to you, here's why I think that:
Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening, appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.
5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has hap-pened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still happens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.
Or if you are still unconvinced, and you want it explained using casual language:
After someone says that "the consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system", can someone prove to oneself that in order for one to relax, one simply starts relaxing and waits, or is this inconsistent with someone's logic, and then someone cannot relax? Why?
If you want to naturally relax, you simply start doing that(relaxing) and you wait... and you can notice yourself after doing that again and again, that this is an axiom to relax, that you can consistently prove to yourself.
If you want to understand the logic of relaxing, the logic of relaxing is to have a simple common word which describes the starting point of naturally relaxing...if you want to use more words to describe that starting point of naturally relaxing, then this is less relaxing...than simply relaxing.
If you don't want to understand the nature of relaxing, don't worry too much about it, just relax and do something else.
Links regarding the challenge. Check on section "incompleteness theorem" number 2 (links are provided so that you understand what we are discussing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel
Kind regards, and thank you for your patience,
no one.
p.s.
"Ok, but WHY ARE YOU SENDING THIS TO US?", someone may ask.
Use the links below, follow the money, and...be patient:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.250991363520389&type=3
