Quote:
Originally Posted by alexander
this is like a 1/4 of an idea... can you please expand on your first post with the following:
firstly, provide the basis of what lead you to look at this, otherwise why would it interest us? and posts that dont interest don't get replies you are perhaps looking to get.
secondly, explain halting to people who may not know what it is, this is, after all, a public forum where people come to learn and participate and get ideas or answers...
lastly, you say "source of derived contradiction"... what contradiction? this is something that should probably be covered in the pre/intro, but still, consider structuring your post closer to an essay (intro paragraph, or sentence or something, some words describing your problem/delema, introduce the concept, ask questions, post oppinion, close out with some thoughts or more questions), it makes for an easier read, better interest into researching the matter and all around a better discussion.
P.S. don't take me as a prick, and i do what you did in your post all the time, problem is, over time i have developed an understanding of better or worse ways of asking/discussing and creating posts that draw people into conversation, rather then confuse the living hell out of them and make them simply not care, which, as you may imagine, translates into no replies and your frustration with the user base for not helping you get a fresh view point, or bring to your eyes some evidence that you did not consider before.
|
Hey thanks. I am not sure I agree that bringing up all the details you mentioned is completely necessary, but if you want me to sure why not.
I have learned material from many subjects in the past, and I have used all of this information to build a single network of information in which everything fits together. One of the subjects I have studied, and which I believe forms a large part of the root of this network, is epistemology. In this subject and other philisophical subjects I have found a large number of very useful concepts many of which were discovered in ancient times. Most of these ideas are very general in nature and apply to almost every other discipline in more specific forms (hence them forming the root).
As I look into more specialized subjects, I notice something that disturbs me somewhat. Many of these general concepts which I have learned are not understood by specialists despite the fact that such concepts still govern the specialty and are important to understand.
Some of these ideas have been championed by other disciplines (such as formal logic) and others have simply been forgotten by mainstream academia.
In any case I see these fundamental truths and others violated hundreds of times a day by people with different levels of understanding. More relevant to this discussion I sometimes see fundamental principles of human knowledge violated by mathematicians.
For example, the word proof is tossed around callously when in fact there is no such thing as proof of anything. There is no form of proof that gaurantees that at some point in the future the claim will not be debunked, since one of the premises can be debunked and close study of the limits of induction will show you exactly what kinds of cases it is more likely to occur in.
The halting undecidability proof is exactly one such "shady proof". It has a large number of unrecognized assumptions, or at least more than a person can easily recognize.
