Shared by lefty friends about the peace they want
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (100)
sorted by:
You're misusing a couple things here in philosophy. Paradoxes do not exist in nature because nature is the only complete and consistent system within itself.
All logical systems will have a logical end-point. This is Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. All logical systems can be either complete or consistent, but never both. Meaning: either you have a logical system that covers all things and gives inconsistent results (generating paradoxes in logic), or you have a logical system which gives you consistent results and has an explicit boundary of where it can be applied.
So yes, paradoxes exist in logic, but not reality. This is because no logical system can ever map to reality completely, so any that try will always have a paradox. Ideologies attempt rationally construct a political framework that covers all possible things that fall under politics (which can become everything). As such, unless your ideology has a point where it no longer applies, you will never have an ideology without a paradox.
I knew you were gonna come by with bullshit again. You are like the liberal newscaster saying "Hindenburg's (sic) Uncertainty Principle is why we can't accurately predict election results."
First it is Gödel's incompleteness theorems, not "Goodell's" theorem. Second it only applies to first order logical systems. Third the incompleteness theorem only says that a theory cannot prove itself. Any political theory is so far removed from ZFC that you pretending like it means anything in the realm of political frameworks is probably the most smooth brain thing I will read this entire year. It's like saying that you cannot use Newton's laws to calculate ballistics because the Standard Model cannot account for CP-symmetry breaking.
I corrected the spelling.
Besides that, I'm not asking you to mathematically prove a political opinion. I'm saying you're misapplying the concept of a paradox, and I'm giving you an example of a larger trend in sciences which shows that you can't have perfect mapping of any model onto reality. A paradox doesn't exist in reality because it's an issue with the model which is what you said, but you're assuming there's a model that won't have one.
No political theory is going to exist without an inconsistency, and you're never going to find or make one. This is especially true because you are attempting to map a theory onto reality which will never map perfectly, assuming you could develop a near perfect political theory, which you can't.
That is false, because reality exists. Just because our descriptions are inadequate right now does not mean they will always be so.
Reality exists, theory is an abstraction. You will never get to a complete understanding of reality, especially as a political theory, because political science is not a rational, material, science. Political Rationalism is wrong.
Then again, even if Political Science was a rational, material, science; just like what I was trying to get with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem; you still can't get to a theory of politics which maps to reality perfectly. Mathematics is not a good enough model to map completely to reality. Logic is not a good enough model to map to reality completely. It's why scientific revolutions exist.
This is kind of like the idea that a computer could 100% simulate the entire universe. It doesn't matter how much you refine your language and ideas, a mental model will never 100% capture all of reality, especially not through written language.
Actually, as long as our “descriptions” are based on systems of logic, they will remain fundamentally “incomplete”, or in Gödel’s framing, there will always be true statements which cannot be proven true within any given system. That’s why it was such a mindfuck to mathematicians at the time and that’s also why it’s been practically ignored since
Gödel* (though the idea of Roger Goodell, NFL commissioner publishing a work which “debunks logic” is pretty funny)
Fair enough.