As Promised, Proof Reality is more Consistent, Complete than Math

There is nothing to dwell on. If you and he think that there is some kind of religious mysticism to get from that, I suggest you both take drugs instead of fooling around with mathematics and physics.

This is nothing but pseudo-intellectual garbage that non-philosophers think philosophy consists of.

In order to argue for his point, danshawen has to tell us what it means for reality to be consistent and complete in the same way that mathematics is consistent and complete so that we may meaningfully compare them. He has not done this. He then needs to give us a way to measure this completeness. He has not done this. He then needs to compare the measurements. He has not done this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"The box" is any system of reasoning that is forced to be incomplete for the sake of consistency.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do like this line of argument.

Kepler's laws may be pretty close to the dynamics of actual celestial mechanics, but they are no match to what the universe can do with 3+ moving bodies in space in which none of the masses are negligibly small, in relatively close proximity to each other, the exact solutions to which have only been found for but a handful of special cases.

In this case, the universe is shown to be complete in cases where mathematics evidently is not. This demonstrates how computational complexity quickly outmatches the ability of mathematics to compensate by means of generalization. Obviously, I cannot prove that this will always be the case, but for now, the n-body problem is the best example of its kind I can think of. Which do you think is more "complete"? When simulations are perfect prediction engines, whenever that may be, a better answer may eventually become available. This is Stephen Wolfram's vision of the goal of mathematics, obviously.

Infinitely, unconditionally complete AND infinitely, unconditionally consistent would seem to beat finite, conditionally complete and/or finite, conditionally consistent, would it not? If any part of your simulation does not match whatever it is the universe does to the finest detail, it fails completely, does it not?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.