sentiententity wrote:
It is being (mis)used here as an argument basically that "science will never understand everything and therefore I can believe anything I wish with no evidence or theory".
I said no such thing and, as far as I remember, neither has anyone else either. Thank you for putting words into my mouth and assuming, with a high degree of inaccuracy, what my position on all this actually is. I have stated, more than once, that I'm
sitting on the fence.
sentiententity wrote:However, Godel's theorem is very precise: what it shows is that within a formal mathematical system of axioms and rules of procedure broad enough to contain simple arithmetical statements and free of internal contradictions, there will be some mathematical statements whose truth is unprovable or undisprovable by those rules of procedure. This does not mean that the statements are unprovable per se - indeed, they may well be, but you will have to use methods from outside the formal system.
Science is not a formal mathematical system derived from axioms with defined procedures. Therefore, Godel is irrelevant.
But, Godel's theorem states that in any consistent system which is strong enough to produce simple arithmetic there are formulae which cannot be proved-in-the-system, but which we can see to be true. Therefore, Godel's theorem is relevant to
some areas of science but not
all areas of science.
I take it by this: "...but you will have to use methods from outside the formal system." you mean p-adic mathematics?
sentiententity wrote:I think that this discussion would be more productive if people did not invoke Godel or Quantum Theory whenever they want to cloak willful ignorance in a veil of intellectual open-mindeness.
Kindly show some respect.
sentiententity wrote:I notice that despite the intensely mathematical nature of both fields, there has been no maths in this thread. I suggest that only those who actually know what they are talking about (physics or maths PhDs, respectively) get to pontificate on the relevance of Godel or quantum theory in future postings.
Now you're being downright arrogant, condescending and rude.
Sentiententity wrote:By "Grand Unified Theory", I meant what scientists/physicists mean: a theory that unites all four forces. There is no reason to suppose that consciousness would play any part in such a theory.
Have you read "New Physics and The Mind" by Robert Paster or "The Emporer's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics" by Roger Penrose (particularly the latter)?
Right, backtracking slightly...
What we are discussing isn't if science holds all the answer, nor if religion does. What we are essentially discussing is belief. Belief is an integral part of human consciousness, which means we cannot discuss belief without also discussing human consciousness.
So far the reductionist approach to science has failed spectacularly to explain how consciousness works and what it actually is. Reductionists have always placed their theories of the mind/consciousness in the belief that the human mind is a biochemical machine (which is where theories about AI started to develop and where Godel's theorem comes into play in its correct usage). It turns out that their faith was misplaced and completely wrong. Ho-hum, back to the drawing board then.
For a more complete over-view,
this article by Hugh Deasy, B.A., M.Sc., Ph.D. does what I don't have the room to do here.
So it would seem, that, like economists and peak oil, scientists who follow the reductionist approach to explaining consciousness (and subjective consciousness in particular), have a few problems thinking outside the box and tend to automatically dismiss (at best) or deride (at worst) what they find contradictory to their particular belief system. Mirroring, almost exactly, how fundamental religionists (is that actually a word?) behave when faced with the same, or similar thing.
And yes, I'm
still sitting on the fence making
observations not criticisms. (Sorry, for some reason I feel the need to highlight a few things, just in case I'm not making it clear enough).
The decision of what became the canon and what became the Apocrypha was taken even later - what rules of evidence were used to decide? Why were significant events recorded in the Bible not recorded by others? E.g. the saints rising from the dead and walking the streets of Jerusalem, as related in the gospel of (?memory) Matthew? Surely such a remarkable event would have been of interest to Roman and Jewish chroniclers of the time?
) lighten up! 
Well a few actually. 
