It is time for us athiests to stand up for ourselves.

[-ND-]

A, B, and C are the 3 possible perspectives a subject possesses regarding a t/f proposition.

A proposition is either true or false.

Perspectives:
Subject A: "I have concluded that the proposition is true!"
Subject B: "I have concluded that the proposition is false!"
Subject C: "I have not concluded whether or not the proposition is true or false!!!!"

Now let's say the proposition is true. Thus, A would be correct, and B would be incorrect.

Now let's sat the proposition is false. Thus, A would be incorrect, and B would be correct.

I could see this work. I think it is slightly to what I explained a little more detailed.

The idea of X and Y is where the objectivity begins and subjectivity ends. I would assume. Every subject (A, B, C) are suppose to compare their proposition to X and Y inorder to achieve the correct path whatever it may be.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Propositions with not being inherently undecidable is an inconrovertible fact.

"Propositions with not being"?
Could you put that into English?
You mean that the existence of inherently undecidable IS an incontrovertible fact? Thus contradicting this -

There is no such thing as inherently undecidable.

Or is it some mangled reiteration of the above (incorrect) statement?

And C does not make a proposition inherently undecidable. C is simply a possible subject perspective that has no inherent effect on the validity of a proposition.

I said that "C is an illustration of the inherently undecidable.."
The inherently undecidable problems are a subset of C.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

God, gave Hades to Satan for keeps. All souls that go to Hades will be kept by Satan, overwatched by God.

Creatin Hades an Satan an defective humans is all part of Gods monstrous plan so he coud watch his children bein tortured :worship:

You really believe that you live for no absolute reason, what an unreasonable folk you are.

God saw fit to create unreasonable folk... who are you to queston God :spank:


A-Man.TTT

 

[-ND-]

@ -ND-
Quite: and that's to do with the incompleteness theorem, not the undecidability problems.
See section 4 on the linked page.

I got it from your link. This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_undecidable_in_ZFC

"In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved the first ZFC undecidability result, namely that the consistency of ZFC itself was undecidable in ZFC."

If you click the purple link it will take you to the previous post I posted.

 

[lixluke]

I could see this work. I think it is slightly to what I explained a little more detailed.

The idea of X and Y is where the objectivity begins and subjectivity ends. I would assume. Every subject (A, B, C) are suppose to compare their proposition to X and Y inorder to achieve the correct path whatever it may be.

No. They need not compare anything. Nor are they on any sort of path. They are simply 3 possible perspectives. Each of which is either correct, incorrect, or neither correct or incorret. C is neither because C is not a conclusion. A and B however are conclusions that can be either correct or incorrect depending on whether or not they coincide with actuality.

 

[-ND-]

Creatin Hades an Satan an defective humans is all part of Gods monstrous plan so he coud watch his children bein tortured :worship:



God saw fit to create unreasonable folk... who are you to queston God :spank:


A-Man.TTT

I am sorry but you are misinformed. In Islam it states we are all born pure. It is the outside influence that decides your fate. Chrstians believe in such thing called original sin.

If a human is defective, it is because they chose to be defective, God only knows what you do and will do. He knows, he does not make you do it. He can make you do many things if He wishes, but that would be unfair, and God is Fair and Just.

 

[-ND-]

No. They need not compare anything. Nor are they on any sort of path. They are simply 3 possible perspectives. Each of which is either correct, incorrect, or neither correct or incorret. C is neither because C is not a conclusion. A and B however are conclusions that can be either correct or incorrect depending on whether or not they coincide with actuality.

If they do not compare with X and Y it will be like the universe without any gravity, everything is just floating like a bunch of globes in water.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I got it from your link. This one:
"In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved the first ZFC undecidability result, namely that the consistency of ZFC itself was undecidable in ZFC."
If you click the purple link it will take you to the previous post I posted.

Which is about ZFC, not the entire incompleteness theorem.
Which your first quote was about, as I stated.
But the quote directly above does show that undecidability exists.

 

[lixluke]

"I said that "C is an illustration of the inherently undecidable.."
The inherently undecidable problems are a subset of C.

OK I changed the wording of my last post.

Inherently undecidable problems? Inherently undecidable propositions are not a subset of C. C has no subset. C is simply lack of conclusion. C represents the position in which one has not arrived at a conclusion on the proposition in question. This is not to say that the proposition itself is inherently undecidable. Nor does it say that a proposition can be inherently undecidable.

C can state that man can never possess knowledge of whether or not the proposition is true or false. However, it is impossible for the proposition instelf to be inherently undecidable. Any subject can make any of the 3 decisions regarding any proposition.

 

[lixluke]

Which is about ZFC, not the entire incompleteness theorem.
Which your first quote was about, as I stated.
But the quote directly above does show that undecidability exists.

Here is a statement frm the Wikipedia:

Undecidability only implies that the particular deductive system being considered does not prove the truth or falsity of the statement. Whether there exist so-called "absolutely undecidable" statements, whose truth value can never be known or is ill-specified, is a controversial point in the philosophy of mathematics.

Logically speaking, absolutely undecidable statements (propositions that are inherently undecidable) do not exist.

 

[-ND-]

Which is about ZFC, not the entire incompleteness theorem.
Which your first quote was about, as I stated.
But the quote directly above does show that undecidability exists.

Yes it does.

I am only pointing out in what "field" it exists. I am not saying you are wrong.

 

[Dywyddyr]

C is simply lack of conclusion.

And you consider that undecidable (i.e. not provably true or false) doesn't lead to a lack of conclusion?
Interesting.

C can state that man can never possess knowledge of whether or not the proposition is true or false.

I.e. undecidable.

Goodbye.

 

[lixluke]

And you consider that undecidable (i.e. not provably true or false) doesn't lead to a lack of conclusion?
Interesting.


I.e. undecidable.

Goodbye.

Even the Wikipedia, your favorite website, discusses undecidability according to specific particular system of justification.

You can consider a particular system of justification, and state that there are certain propositions that cannot be proven with that particular method of justification.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2454896&postcount=232

Undecidability only implies that the particular deductive system being considered does not prove the truth or falsity of the statement. Whether there exist so-called "absolutely undecidable" statements, whose truth value can never be known or is ill-specified, is a controversial point in the philosophy of mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem

 

[cluelusshusbund]

In Islam it states we are all born pure. It is the outside influence that decides your fate. Chrstians believe in such thing called original sin.

If a human is defective, it is because they chose to be defective...

Its God who created those "out-side influences"... an its God who created humans so defective that mos of 'em wooud be effected by those influences an wind up in hell... an not even a stack of Holey-Bibles on a pile of korans can change that fact... eh


A-Man.TTT

 

[Dywyddyr]

Here is a statement frm the Wikipedia:

Oh right: the same source you chastised me about only yesterday...
And you fail to provide the link, or context...

Logically speaking, absolutely undecidable statements (propositions that are inherently undecidable) do not exist.

Very clever: change of tack from "undecidable" to "absolutely undecidable".
And you also lie again.
The quote does NOT state that they do not exist, it states they are "a controversial point in the philosophy of mathematics".

 

[-ND-]

Its God who created those "out-side influences"... an its God who created humans so defective that mos of 'em wooud be effected by those influences an wind up in hell... an not even a stack of Holey-Bibles on a pile of korans can change that fact... eh


A-Man.TTT

LOL. He did not create any synthetic shit. Synthetic was created by man. He created the Universe as it was empty without human beings. Everything you see infront of you was created by humans. The only exceptions are the things that are of this earth and grow from this earth. God has a set date for the end of the world, he will not interfere directly until that day.

 

[-ND-]

Dywyddyr, would you be able to explain what this means:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFC

The frist part, I can't seem to really understand that. I know it is mathematics, but in english please.

 

[lixluke]

Very clever: change of tack from "undecidable" to "absolutely undecidable".

What change? I stated from my very first reply to your point that undecidable was only possible according to a particular system of justification, but not absolutely inhernet to any proposition.

You can consider a particular system of justification, and state that there are certain propositions that cannot be proven with that particular method of justification.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2454896&postcount=232

Not to mention, your favorite website says the same. If you don't want to agree with me, than you can at least agree with your beloved source.

Undecidability only implies that the particular deductive system being considered does not prove the truth or falsity of the statement. Whether there exist so-called "absolutely undecidable" statements, whose truth value can never be known or is ill-specified, is a controversial point in the philosophy of mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem

I've never changed my position on the matter:
1. Only according to a particular system of justification can a proposition be undecidable.
2. It is impossible for a proposition to be inherently undecidable.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

LOL. He did not create any synthetic shit. Synthetic was created by man. He created the Universe as it was empty without human beings. Everything you see infront of you was created by humans. The only exceptions are the things that are of this earth and grow from this earth. God has a set date for the end of the world, he will not interfere directly until that day.

God wants hell to be over-flowin wit humans... thats why he created us in such a way that falure was inevitable.!!!

PS
When you except that God is a monster all the pieces will fall into place... then you will actualy be able to answr questons insted of blowin smok-screens of bible quotes... lol.!!!


A-Man.TTT

 

[Doreen]

None of those statements contradict the facts presented.

Not sure what you mean by 'the facts presented', but these statements are neither true nor false.