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:
That is false, because reality exists. Just because our descriptions are inadequate right now does not mean they will always be so.
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.
You are confusing the information capacity of the universe with it's laws. A larger universe can simulate a smaller universe, even if it has identical laws.
We're not talking about a larger universe simulating a smaller universe. You actually claimed the inverse, that a smaller universe can simulate a larger universe.
I didn't claim that at all. I claimed that a smaller universe can describe the processes that make it work. However even your strawman is incorrect, because a smaller system can simulate a larger system, it just can't do it as fast as the larger system.
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
It's rightfully ignored because it is wrong. The proof is that the universe exists. Any paradox is equivalent to 1 = 0, which means if a paradox exists then one could exploit whatever system that contains it to destroy matter and eventually the universe.
? - the theorem is talking about systems of logic, a human created idea, not “the universe”, all that is demonstrated by your observation is that the universe must not be a purely logic-based system as we understand such a thing. Have you read much about it and what it actually says?
You mean like…the paradox of creatio ex nihilo?
If you are referring to the big bang, science makes no claim to know what happens before the universe passed the Chandrasekhar limit, but the mass was obviously already there.
Only religious nutjobs like you claim that dishonor. Who or What created your god?
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.
Theory is a description. Each step towards the theory of everything, things get simpler, if more high energy. It is the same few laws repeated over and over again at smaller and larger scales. That is not abstraction, that is the opposite of abstraction. You were bringing up Conway's game of life the other day, so you should understand how simple laws can give rise to apparent complexity. If you know the state of the universe at a given point, you can calculate the state of the universe at any point in the future or the past. We are not there yet, but we will be, provided libertarian don't destroy all science funding or democrats give it all to the niggers.
It's only when you zoom out, and away from first principles that you get unsolved complicated crap like the Navier-Stokes equations.
"things get simpler" is not reality. You're talking about simplexity, but that doesn't have any relation to what you can understand as a homo sapien in regards to the universe. The universe is as it is, it does not have a requirement to conform to human intuition. What it could it simplify to may only be simple from a non-human perspective. And again, that is within the material universe. Politics is non-rational, and non-material.
You are attempting to conflate being reductive as a universal principle. Even this comment:
demonstrates your own ignorance. There's zero nuance in the statement. It's an attempted attack on me, a universal statement of all libertarians, a universal statement on all blacks, an assumption about the universal intent of all blacks at all times and all places, and an assumption that science can only be funded by the government. You've made a litany of assumptions because you believe that a perfect ideology can exist while being complete and consistent; thus, you can simply operate entirely off of thought-terminating cliches.
That's not reality. It's never reality. There is no ideology that will correctly map to the universe, and you will always have paradoxes in all models, particularly when dealing with non-material topics.