Strategic Incompletness wisely keeps human individuals from knowing themselves finally. — ucarr
QM launched a revolution when is made science shake hands with humanities by insisting that cognition is integral to the causal process that determines the final state of a system operating through changes. — ucarr
Although the wave equation predicts how a system evolves, it does not explain why a specific outcome crystallizes upon measurement. This explanatory gap highlighted the need to incorporate the observer into the framework, marking a significant shift in how science interacts with the humanities. — Wayfarer
The questioner who does an experiment to get an answer poses the question that activates QM processes towards a final state of the system i.e., an answer. — ucarr
In this way, the individual can always go forward into the future armed with the panoply of unlimited possibilities.
Strategic Incompleteness (SI) keeps human out of the reach of the calculus. You can’t sum human to a limit because of thoughts, ideas and feelings,
The mass of consciousness is sagaciously hidden from the calculation with strategic absence, so there’s always something that remains beyond the reach of measurement.
This is part of the end game of entropy and thermodynamic resistance to completeness of measurement, which is to say completeness of system.
The impossibility of complete measurement of consciousness goes heads up with the scourge of infinity as the diplomat who sticks his head into the lion’s mouth.
By seeming to be massless, NI uses escape from complete system to also sidestep the ultimate unwieldy mess of infinity.
Incompleteness resembles undecidableness, but the former is creatively future looking, whereas the latter is simply stuck. — ucarr
But isn’t making making a measurement simply taking a snapshot or picture of how things are at that moment in time ? — kindred
Well, Roger Penrose said in his Emperor's New Mind that the mind was not reducible to algorithms — Wayfarer
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Lucas_argument
Due to human ability to see the truth of formal system's Gödel sentences, it is argued that the human mind cannot be computed on a Turing machine that works on Peano arithmetic because the latter cannot see the truth value of its Gödel sentence, while human minds can.
A Turing machine could also use ZF to prove an otherwise unprovable theorem in PA. Therefore, it is not something that only human minds can do. — Tarskian
However, isn’t ‘the Turing machine’ something that only exists in the minds of humans? An actual Turing machine would require infinite memory, so it is not something that could ever exist. — Wayfarer
However, isn’t ‘the Turing machine’ something that only exists in the minds of humans? — Wayfarer
Since there are statements true but unprovable, there seems to be a disconnection between truth and proof. — ucarr
There is always a disconnection between truth and justification. — Tarskian
the burden of proof for the truth of a defendant’s innocence is a standard too stringent? — ucarr
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
The burden of proof is on the prosecutor for criminal cases, and the defendant is presumed innocent. If the claimant fails to discharge the burden of proof to prove their case, the claim will be dismissed.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.