Seasons

Its funny Mr. W....I was thinking the exact same thing.

For a reasonably neutral look at Gödel's argument, try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof

For a dissenting opinion, try
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/godel.html

psimagus: I find your reaction strange. Science is all about the empirical evidence, and so of course it does not provide any absolute answers. It is inherently uncertain. This is the nature of scientific proof. Rational and mathematical proofs are certain given that the underlying assumptions are true. So when I say "scientific proof" I mean "empirical evidence." Gödel's proof is not empirical evidence nor does it suggest a means of obtaining any. I value empirical evidence over rational proof. You seem to value rational proof over empirical evidence. *shrugs*

psimagus -- If you look at the original convo in Newcomers, you'll see that Ulrike never claimed that a "proof" didn't exist. She said that a "scientific proof" didn't exist.

I don't value proof over evidence - I recognize that both have valuable roles to play in our understanding of the universe (along with more subjective techniques.) I cannot assess their relative worths - it wouldn't surprise me if they are indeterminate. But I have to maintain that they are distinct techniques - confusing them merely devalues their usefulness.
OK, "empirical evidence" then. You are quite right, Goedel's proof is not empirical, and it doesn't suggest a means of getting any - I would never claim it does. Other work by Goedel goes further, and states categorically that in fact you can never get any.
Going back to "Science is all about empirical evidence" - yes, but (unless you exclude pure mathematics and logic from the set {Science},) not only about empirical evidence. Logic is a useful second string to our bow, but only if we use it properly.

My sole objection to your argument resolves fundamentally to your misuse of the term "proof". Whether you qualify it with "scientific" or "rational" or whatever, it is a misuse of the term. Proof is proof, empirical evidence is empirical evidence, and no proof says "show me the evidence" unless you arbitrarily redefine "proof" as synonymous with "theory" or "rule", whether or not that redefinition is achieved by qualifying it with "scientific" (a hugely overused adjective of spurious value IMO.) When you fail to distinguish the difference between proof and evidence - that is precisely when logical absurdities do sneak into arguments in the form of those "unstated presuppositions Z".

It sounds like we agree on most everything else, so I guess we're going to have to agree to differ on the semantics before the Forge runs out of electrons. Can I buy you a pint in Dogh'd's?

Make it a pint of a Thai iced tea float (made with coconut ice cream, and it's a deal).

I'll put it this way. The Simpsons should've been axed when I was still in high school.

I'm in my 30s now.


Oh yeah, and ruin it for those who weren't alive?

Gaaah! Too...Many...Geniuses....

I rather imagine that AI tends to attract the genius sort.

True. Very true.

Speaking of God, someone in Romania is trying to sue him:
http://en.rian.ru/world/20051018/41809986.html

I can picture trying to collect the judgement, if he wins his case against God. Some people have too much time on their hands

Idiot... You don't always get what you ask for.