About Shawn

About Masturbatory dude in Metropolis.
Location In Metropolis
Website www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfmh2B1FfcY
Posts 10,755
Last Active
Site Role Member, Guest Speaker Questioner
Favourite philosophers The Cynics who never wrote much since they were sad.
Favourite quotations If we cannot prove a theorem we need to expand our alphabet!
And if there are no more theorems to prove, then we still must nominalize and denumerize our alphabet to increase our intelligence.

Good Luck!

1. Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.

The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed..

-SAD Epictetus.

If the methodology cannot be entertained as true, then the outcome must be ascertained as the proof of the methodology. If the methodology is determined by the outcome of the truth of the issue, then those more concerned with truth itself are going to, at least, have the moral superior outcome.

-Myself, and seemingly no methodology satisfied the premise.
For HAL 9000:


Pick your parameters for a, b, c and respective f[(a,b,c... (a llimited Gödel alphabet expanding incrementally)]

Important point:
Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies to logical languages with countable alphabets. So it does not rule out the possibility that one might be able to prove 'everything' in a language with an uncountable alphabet OR expand the alphabet to account for new variables.