Big question:

You got questions? We have answers.
well for the part about him being poor guy it is because he has myopathy, so yes poor him :(

otherwise for this theorems well it is more or less valid 'theorically' but well
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation[/url]

Hawking's analysis became the first convincing insight into a possible theory of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity"]quantum gravity[/url]. However, the existence of Hawking radiation has never been observed. In June 2008, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA"]NASA[/url] launched the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_Large_Area_Space_Telescope"]GLAST[/url] satellite, which will search for the terminal gamma-ray flashes expected from evaporating primordial black holes. In speculative [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_extra_dimension"]large extra dimension[/url] theories, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN"]CERN's[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider]Large Hadron Collider[/url] may be able to create micro black holes and observe their evaporation.



from the same wikipage you quoted :

His books and public appearances have made him an academic celebrity and he is an [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Fellow"]Honorary Fellow[/url] of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_for_the_encouragement_of_Arts,_Manufactures_%26_Commerce"]Royal Society of Arts[/url],[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#cite_note-soafellow-1"][2][/url] a lifetime member of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences"]Pontifical Academy of Sciences[/url],[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#cite_note-2"][3][/url] and in 2009 was awarded the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom"]Presidential Medal of Freedom[/url], the highest civilian award in the United States.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#cite_note-presidential-3][4][/url]

[...]

He has also achieved success with works of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science"]popular science[/url] in which he discusses his own theories and cosmology in general; these include the runaway best seller [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Time"]A Brief History of Time[/url], which stayed on the British [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Times"]Sunday Times[/url] bestsellers list for a record-breaking 237 weeks.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#cite_note-book-7"][8][/url][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#cite_note-8][9][/url]

so yes as i said he has a brain, and he is thinker , but is more famous for his work of vulgarisation, and his theory never been really observed even if its probable that it is true, no experiment at this day really proved him wrong or right, and black hole have been subject to many theory since einstein, hawkins in one of those theory, but never been observed , so the most usefull thing he did was writing a brief history of time, and writing pseudo science fiction stuff on black hole ... but yes he is knowledgable in math and astro physics no doubt, but well his theory is pretty tiny and i don't consider it as being a real break through in science, he has interesting idea and studied black holes a lot, but i see him like some kind of mascot than a real physician, he has been put on top cause he is charismatic and know how to explain things in simple way, i think it is him who wrote 'each equation you put in a book, you loose 1 million reader' or something like this, so he is a good teacher, know how to explain relavitly simply complex stuff, and it is more for this that he is famous than for his theories on black holes, which nobody would really know about if he didn't write those book of 'popular science'

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science[/url]

Popular science, sometimes called literature of science, is interpretation of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science"]science[/url] intended for a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_audience"]general audience[/url]. While [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_journalism]science journalism[/url] focuses on recent scientific developments, popular science is broad-ranging, often written by scientists as well as journalists, and is presented in many formats, which can include books, television documentaries, magazine articles and web pages.

[...]

The purpose of scientific literature is to inform and persuade peers as to the validity of observations and conclusions and the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic"]forensic[/url] efficacy of methods. Popular science attempts to inform and convince scientific outsiders (sometimes along with scientists in other fields) of the significance of data and conclusions and to celebrate the results through [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epideictic]epideictic[/url] rhetoric. Statements in scientific literature are often qualified and tentative, emphasizing that new observations and results are consistent with and similar to established knowledge wherein qualified scientists are assumed to recognize the relevance. By contrast, popular science emphasizes uniqueness and generality, taking a tone of factual authority absent from the scientific literature. Comparisons between original scientific reports and derivative science journalism and popular science typically reveal at least some level of distortion and oversimplification which can often be quite dramatic, even with politically neutral scientific topics.
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

from your page about gobdel :

Hilbert and Ackermann's question was: if you have a set of axioms describing a mathematical system, do the rules for logical reasoning which they gave in their book allow you to derive every true statement about the system, and do they ensure that only true statements can be derived?

The expected answer was "yes", and Gödel confirmed that it was.His dissertation established that the principles of logic developed up to that time were adequate for their intended purpose, which was to prove everything that was true on the basis of a given set of axioms.
The Incompleteness Theorem

In his 1931 paper Gödel showed that, no matter how you formulate the axioms for number theory, there will always be some statement that is true of the natural numbers, but that can't be proved.
so yes , it tells you can't prove everything that a logical system of axioms yell as true using this same logical system.

Gödel, on the other hand, saw his incompleteness theorems not as demonstrating the inadequacy of the axiomatic method but as showing that the derivation of theorems cannot be completely mechanized. He believed they justified the role of intuition in mathematical research.
the statement in bold has been further deveoped in the articiles "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" which are more interesting that gobdel theorems in a philosophical point of view.

the most interesting thing that godbel proven in a philosophical point of view is that it is the brain who give meaning to mathematics, and mathematics don't have any real value or any real truth that can be entierly proven, and it is merly an intuitive thing more than a totally rational process.
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

as for the statement :

though Gödel's work irrefutably proves that "undecidable" statements do exist within number theory, not many examples of such statements have been found. One example comes from the sentence:

This statement is unprovable
" wrote:here is another: This statement is unprovable; prove it?

" wrote:Prove it.

" wrote:why should i prove it ?

" wrote:It's what the statement requires of you.



though Gödel's work irrefutably proves that "undecidable" statements do exist
at least , when you quote something from a webpage, try not to add too much thing by your own, it just make you look dumb and show that you didn't understood the paper ...

the only thing it prove is :
it is an abusive statement ... i don't like statement requiring me to do things ... i think this statement has an authority complex ...



" wrote:if you set the axiom that a statement is not provable, then you can prove it is not provable ...
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

LOL, it's a paradox. I am right and you wasted all your intelligence playing around with it. It's still an "undecidable statement" so how does that make me dumb?
User avatar
SecretAgentMan
 
Posts: 9296
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:44 am
Blogs: 2
Has thanked: 887 times
Been thanked: 1048 times

because you added 'prove it' as it tell that it is an undecidable statement, you just didn't understand a shit about the whole thing :)
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

the thing that the paper show, is in trying to understand the logical meaning of the statement, not to prove it or not .. :) the whole point is in the logical analysis of the statment , not in proving it ..
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

"prove it" wasn't added by me. LOL. I understood it was a paradoxical statement, I didn't say anything else. Just an example of a paradox without a solution.

Very simple.
User avatar
SecretAgentMan
 
Posts: 9296
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:44 am
Blogs: 2
Has thanked: 887 times
Been thanked: 1048 times

the thing that the paper show, is in trying to understand the logical meaning of the statement, not to prove it or not .. the whole point is in the logical analysis of the statment , not in proving it ..


DOn't make yourself look dumber than needs be, both hawking and Dawson agree with my simplistic view of it in saying logic or maths is incomplete, that logic is limited.

I am not saying you had to prove it dummy. I was just giving you the paradox as I found it lol.
User avatar
SecretAgentMan
 
Posts: 9296
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:44 am
Blogs: 2
Has thanked: 887 times
Been thanked: 1048 times

and it is not even a paradox, it is an undecidable statement, a statement that you cannot prove right or wrong, which is different from a paradox
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

no you didn't wrote it as you found it, you added the authoritarian 'prove it' at the end which make no sense in the context, and you did asked to prove it ... several time !
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

and it is not even a paradox, it is an undecidable statement, a statement that you cannot prove right or wrong, which is different from a paradox


Hawking specifically refers to it as a paradox, and if I remember correctly any information on it calls it a paradox. So no distinction is made.

You are looking foolish.
User avatar
SecretAgentMan
 
Posts: 9296
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:44 am
Blogs: 2
Has thanked: 887 times
Been thanked: 1048 times

no you didn't wrote it as you found it, you added the authoritarian 'prove it' at the end which make no sense in the context, and you did asked to prove it ... several time !


That is no added!!!, the "prove it" was exactly how I found it.

Check the sources again.. lol, here I will do it.
User avatar
SecretAgentMan
 
Posts: 9296
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:44 am
Blogs: 2
Has thanked: 887 times
Been thanked: 1048 times

and yes logic and math are limited, they are limited by their axioms, but if you choose axiom that you consider as true, all the thing you will deduce from those axiom will still be true .. which is the whole point of logic and math .. given a set a of axiom you can deduce more things, and it give the whole math and geometry, but in the end yes the valitidy of it is only arbitrary, and subjective, it doesn't prevent it to be efficient and being the most correct represenation to this day of the universe
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

" wrote:That is no added!!!, the "prove it" was exactly how I found it.

Check the sources again.. lol, here I will do it.


ok i check it again

hough Gödel's work irrefutably proves that "undecidable" statements do exist within number theory, not many examples of such statements have been found. One example comes from the sentence:

This statement is unprovable

You can see why this is a prime candidate: if you could prove this statement to be true, then it would be false! It is true only if it is unprovable, and unprovable only if it is true.


show mee where is the 'prove it' bit ?
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Ooh alright. Let's do another question, shall we???

HOW?
Cusp_Child
 
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:39 am
Blogs: 3
Has thanked: 578 times
Been thanked: 247 times

math and logic are limited by the brain of the one who write them, with you, it is very limited indeed :D
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Yes, the strawman argument has come out. :). lol, I am not saying science doesn't explain the universe but that the "why" question as in why do we exist cannot be answered using logic.
User avatar
SecretAgentMan
 
Posts: 9296
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:44 am
Blogs: 2
Has thanked: 887 times
Been thanked: 1048 times

ok i check it again


It's not in those links but I have seen it given " This statement is unprovable; prove it", it's not in hawkings link but maybe the other. In any case the inclination is to prove it's validity... lol, what's the point of a riddle if you are not going to answer it?
Don't really understand why you place so much emphasis on the "prove it" bit when Hawking and others look at the statement with exactly that question in mind.

as his response says, it is only proved correct if it is wrong and only correct if unproven.

seems you are being petty.
User avatar
SecretAgentMan
 
Posts: 9296
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:44 am
Blogs: 2
Has thanked: 887 times
Been thanked: 1048 times

hi did not read a single post, excet the first, Why i did not want to,

why, we are part of god which means she is part of us, which means we are gods, to a degree, plus no one was before god so no one can judge god , so how can god judge something as it was and always will be, so in her wisdom in my view she made us, so she could see herself in us through us and within us, we are part of god for her to see who she is and in return we get to see who we are , well, some off us do,
put simple we are god in god through god, and she is us within us through us, we are one and the same,
we get life she gets all our experiences and this shows her what she is and what we are, hitler is god, jesus, budda, and every serial killer, every one is god and she is us, we are just part of the bigger her, she is part of the smaller us, so we can never not be part of her, oh your wrong for saying hitler, but if we are all one he is in the one, plus the serial killers too, i dont agree with what they do , but they are part of god, as they cannot not be,

we experience life and she experiences what shes like, as we cannot die as we are part of her, we simplt go home, all the serial killers in the world on the bigger scale off things is terrible, but in the end we go home anyway all of us, and then start again, take one person, if he is a doctor, in one life, how many lives would he have to go through to fill every experience, like , doctor, carpainter, housewife, killer, mechanic,pilot, etc, now take 6,000,000,000 people and they all have to fill these experiences,
how long now do you think the world will last doing the figures on these sums ?
sean keyes
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:52 pm
Blogs: 12
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1113 times

math and logic are limited by the brain of the one who write them, with you, it is very limited indeed


there is certainly something limited about a guy spending so much time on a mystical or spiritual forum coming from your background lol, very odd :)
User avatar
SecretAgentMan
 
Posts: 9296
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:44 am
Blogs: 2
Has thanked: 887 times
Been thanked: 1048 times


  • Similar Topics

    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to index page Questions & Answers

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
cron