Originally posted by tony1
Name one scientist that doesn't. (but if you want to imagine otherwise, whatever.)
Nobody truly understands what the theorem actually implies for the universe, and the debate continues at this time. For example, there is a strong argument in terms of information theory that translates the theorem into a rather obvious statement that for any information processor of given complexity there exist sufficiently information-rich outputs that the processor cannot generate. I don't see that as a big deal, since the goal of knowledge is not to enumerate the complete state of the universe, but to grasp a representative subset of that state while extracting the underlying mechanisms that drive it. Moreover, the theorem deals with incompleteness of formal systems; it says nothing about evolution of formal systems or any convergence between a formal system and reality.
But I suppose it only fair to ask in turn what impact the theorem has on your thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is that the theorem drives you to conclude that there must be things beyond the grasp of human thought. You may be right (thought the issues are subtle and muddy enough to leave room for doubt). However, none of it has anything to do with ascribing well-defined derivative features to a supposedly fundamental entity. Note that Gödel's Theorem only constrains formal systems; it does not constrain the logical methodology. So I can indeed logically argue ad absurdum against intelligence of any alleged primary cause.
Well then, answer it according to your highly expansive understanding of logical sense, and of alternatives.
Well, I am glad that we are making some progress.
You do at least admit to the possibility that there are things that science has not yet discovered.
Name one scientist that doesn't. (but if you want to imagine otherwise, whatever.)
Presumably, you are aware of Gödel's Theorem, and the impact it should have on your thinking?
Nobody truly understands what the theorem actually implies for the universe, and the debate continues at this time. For example, there is a strong argument in terms of information theory that translates the theorem into a rather obvious statement that for any information processor of given complexity there exist sufficiently information-rich outputs that the processor cannot generate. I don't see that as a big deal, since the goal of knowledge is not to enumerate the complete state of the universe, but to grasp a representative subset of that state while extracting the underlying mechanisms that drive it. Moreover, the theorem deals with incompleteness of formal systems; it says nothing about evolution of formal systems or any convergence between a formal system and reality.
But I suppose it only fair to ask in turn what impact the theorem has on your thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is that the theorem drives you to conclude that there must be things beyond the grasp of human thought. You may be right (thought the issues are subtle and muddy enough to leave room for doubt). However, none of it has anything to do with ascribing well-defined derivative features to a supposedly fundamental entity. Note that Gödel's Theorem only constrains formal systems; it does not constrain the logical methodology. So I can indeed logically argue ad absurdum against intelligence of any alleged primary cause.
Anyway, your question about a non-physical alternative that would make logical sense, cannot be answered due to your highly limited understanding of logical sense, and of alternatives.
Well then, answer it according to your highly expansive understanding of logical sense, and of alternatives.