Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

Post by Univalence »

PeteOlcott wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 8:23 pm When we get into questions regarding empiricism we are getting into the fundamental nature
of reality and have thus quit talking about logic and started talking about metaphysics and religion.
And when you only talk about deduction you are stuck in the dreamworld of abstractions.

Make some contact with the ground perhaps and focus on real-world systems?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_ ... n_science)
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

Post by PeteOlcott »

Univalence wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 8:26 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 8:23 pm When we get into questions regarding empiricism we are getting into the fundamental nature
of reality and have thus quit talking about logic and started talking about metaphysics and religion.
And when you only talk about deduction you are stuck in the dreamworld of abstractions.

Make some contact with the ground perhaps and focus on real-world systems?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_ ... n_science)
Until my (abstract) math is accepted I will have insufficient credibility to accomplish
very much. Once my math is accepted I could be the system architect leading a
team of 60 people.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

Post by Univalence »

PeteOlcott wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 8:39 pm Until my (abstract) math is accepted I will have insufficient credibility to accomplish
very much. Once my math is accepted I could be the system architect leading a
team of 60 people.
I am so glad I work at an organization where academic achievements are less valuable than toilet paper...
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

Post by PeteOlcott »

Univalence wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 8:49 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 8:39 pm Until my (abstract) math is accepted I will have insufficient credibility to accomplish
very much. Once my math is accepted I could be the system architect leading a
team of 60 people.
I am so glad I work at an organization where academic achievements are less valuable than toilet paper...
My friend's mom was a maid at a hospital, her MS in education did not count at all
because it was totally irrelevant to her position.

In my case the academic achievement is monetizable.
Completing Doug Lenat's project could automate every job requiring a mind.

We could for example provide an cancer doctor that is all knowing about cancer.
This machine would have the sum total of all human general knowledge immediately
available for any purpose. Without a formalized notion of correct (AKA true) it
would be of little use. Without refuting Tarski no such formalized notion of correct
cannot possibly exist.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

Post by Univalence »

PeteOlcott wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 9:09 pm In my case the academic achievement is monetizable.
Completing Doug Lenat's project could automate every job requiring a mind.
I think the stuff Google works on is further down that road than Doug...

Not just monetizable. Monetized.

And all the limitations in logic/modeling/AI/machine learning I am pointing out to you. They are practical, not just theoretical.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

Post by PeteOlcott »

Univalence wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 9:19 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 9:09 pm In my case the academic achievement is monetizable.
Completing Doug Lenat's project could automate every job requiring a mind.
I think the stuff Google works on is further down that road than Doug...

Not just monetizable. Monetized.

And all the limitations in logic/modeling/AI/machine learning I am pointing out to you. They are practical, not just theoretical.
Doug's vision combined with mine could create an infallible (never makes the same mistake twice)
all knowing (within the current finite set of general knowledge) mind.

IBM's Watson had very shallow depth of understanding that was not very much more than smart keyword matching.
wtf
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

Post by wtf »

PeteOlcott wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 9:09 pm We could for example provide an cancer doctor that is all knowing about cancer.
This machine would have the sum total of all human general knowledge immediately
available for any purpose.
Isn't that just the failed idea of expert systems straight out of 1980?

Correction. 1965.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

Post by PeteOlcott »

wtf wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 10:39 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 9:09 pm We could for example provide an cancer doctor that is all knowing about cancer.
This machine would have the sum total of all human general knowledge immediately
available for any purpose.
Isn't that just the failed idea of expert systems straight out of 1980?

Correction. 1965.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system
Not at all. Expert systems are mostly clueless about most everything.
The system that I am referring to is the functional equivalent of a human mind.

The key aspect of this system is simply populating it with a reasonable amount
of human knowledge. Doug Lenat's team spent 700 labor years manually encoding
the tiny subset of human knowledge called "common sense". My ultimate aim
is to fully automate the knowledge ontology population process.
wtf
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

Post by wtf »

PeteOlcott wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 11:12 pm The system that I am referring to is the functional equivalent of a human mind.
We know of no way to implement the "functional equivalent of a human mind." That's a claim that goes far beyond your other (manifestly wrong) claims about having refuted ‎Gödel, Turing, Tarski, and now apparently Quine. The list keeps getting longer.

But even if you had accomplished that there would STILL be no theory of how to create the functional equivalent of the human mind. Because your theories don't say anything about the human mind at all. We could overturn all our beliefs about formal symbolic systems without saying the first thing about what it is you need to do to implement a human mind.
Impenitent
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

Post by Impenitent »

some dogs are dead, others are hot

-Imp
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

Post by PeteOlcott »

wtf wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 2:55 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 11:12 pm The system that I am referring to is the functional equivalent of a human mind.
We know of no way to implement the "functional equivalent of a human mind." That's a claim that goes far beyond your other (manifestly wrong) claims about having refuted ‎Gödel, Turing, Tarski, and now apparently Quine. The list keeps getting longer.

But even if you had accomplished that there would STILL be no theory of how to create the functional equivalent of the human mind. Because your theories don't say anything about the human mind at all. We could overturn all our beliefs about formal symbolic systems without saying the first thing about what it is you need to do to implement a human mind.
Almost all that needs be done to create the functional equivalent of a human
is connect together a large set of ideas formalized in a directed acyclic graph.
The connection between ideas <is> the set of human knowledge.
wtf
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

Post by wtf »

PeteOlcott wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 3:08 am Almost all that needs be done to create the functional equivalent of a human
is connect together a large set of ideas formalized in a directed acyclic graph.
The connection between ideas <is> the set of human knowledge.
And consciousness, intentionality, desire, will, emotion, qualia, experience arise from that?

I wouldn't even agree that you can mimic the behavioral aspects of a mind like that. Where would creativity for new ideas come from? If you look at the history of ideas you'll find that every new idea breaks the existing system of logical belief. Paradigm shifts and all that. The old geniuses die off and new ones accept radical new ways of thinking.

But to claim that you can duplicate every function of the mind, when in fact subjective experience is the mind's most vital function -- it's defining function I'd say --is quite a claim indeed.

Have you worked out the details? I'm certainly curious.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

Post by PeteOlcott »

wtf wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 3:39 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 3:08 am Almost all that needs be done to create the functional equivalent of a human
is connect together a large set of ideas formalized in a directed acyclic graph.
The connection between ideas <is> the set of human knowledge.
And consciousness, intentionality, desire, will, emotion, qualia, experience arise from that?

I wouldn't even agree that you can mimic the behavioral aspects of a mind like that. Where would creativity for new ideas come from? If you look at the history of ideas you'll find that every new idea breaks the existing system of logical belief. Paradigm shifts and all that. The old geniuses die off and new ones accept radical new ways of thinking.

But to claim that you can duplicate every function of the mind, when in fact subjective experience is the mind's most vital function -- it's defining function I'd say --is quite a claim indeed.

Have you worked out the details? I'm certainly curious.
I don't mean the aesthetics of the behavior of people with emotions.
What I mean is that anything that can be accomplished by a thinking human
mind could be accomplished by a software mind. Figuring out the best
approach to win a supreme court case. Figuring out how to cure cancer.

All the aesthetics can also be added so that this software mind will be totally
indistinguishable from a living mind, but, we first have to conquer thinking,
reasoning and creating before delving into aesthetics. Creating turns out to
have an algorithm, the same algorithm that I used to figure out how to solve
the halting problem would provide creativity to the software mind.
wtf
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

Post by wtf »

PeteOlcott wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 4:43 am All the aesthetics can also be added so that this software mind will be totally
indistinguishable from a living mind, but, we first have to conquer thinking,
reasoning and creating before delving into aesthetics. Creating turns out to
have an algorithm, the same algorithm that I used to figure out how to solve
the halting problem would provide creativity to the software mind.
Claims without evidence.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

Post by PeteOlcott »

wtf wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 4:48 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 4:43 am All the aesthetics can also be added so that this software mind will be totally
indistinguishable from a living mind, but, we first have to conquer thinking,
reasoning and creating before delving into aesthetics. Creating turns out to
have an algorithm, the same algorithm that I used to figure out how to solve
the halting problem would provide creativity to the software mind.
Claims without evidence.
Yes they are. The only way to truly see apparently is simply understanding direct intuitions
of the nature of truth. That only gets you to the thinking aspect of the mind. Understanding
categorically exhaustively complete reasoning get you the creative aspect of a mind. Once
you have thinking and creating, the rest is much easier. Once I actually publish my solution
to the halting problem I expect my credibility to shoot way up.
Post Reply