@Peralisc He proved his theories. One of his proofs is quite easy to understand. Read the article on wikipedia for a general introduction. The basis idea is that any closed system can't prove every axiom within itself (or every valid truth in itself). Any closed system always needs new axioms to prove everything within it (even though they are true). And any open system is inconsistent.
I am lost. Why did Gödel try to solve the Continuum theory of Cantor if his on the side which stands on the belief that some things just can't be proved?
@Reivann You can have mathematical proofs, the problem is that the axioms you use to prove something can't be proven with the axioms themselves. You always have to go out of the system, ad infinitum. Math is still useful, but you can't have complete certainty of your proofs, because there will always be a paradox within the system you are using to claim your proofs. Math can still be used to describe the world, and math is still valid, it's just not fully certain.
@astroboomboy Thanks for answering. :) So you mean, basically, Gödel just wants to say that math can't be certain on its proofs. But it has the capacity to ascribe what infinity is?
@Reivann Actually, infinity is one of the biggest problems in math, and you can't really prove what infinity is (but you can make conjectures and claims that might not be proven). What Gödel says is that you can make proofs, but there will always be a "problem" with the logic used to make that proof. This has to do with the axioms one uses in math. The axioms can't prove their own logical grounds, and need a bigger system. But the bigger system also needs a bigger system, ad infinitum!
@Reivann Oh, and I'm a little bit uncertain about infinity. I don't know much about it, as the proofs often use very complex set theory that I don't understand. But I don't think it is possible to make valid proofs about infinity as a whole, but you can contain infinity in certain sets and make claims about these sets. But there will always be something outside of each set, so infinity can't really be contained (not the ultimate infinity at least, hehe).
@astroboomboy Ah, well.. that's why I got confused. XD. :( -- Gödel thought that there could be a "problem" with the logic used to make proofs. I am not sure if I am getting the drift, but did he think that maths can solve the problem on infinity left by Cantor? I find it ironic that Gödel tried to prove something that might be unprovable via logic (which is his claim). Or was he trying to create another system of thinking aside from logic?
@Reivann No, he did not attempt to create another system. He maintained that one had to accept the problems, and the problem isn't really as fundamental as many claim. He thought that the problem had to do with the nature of god, that we are unable to fully grasp it. But he still thought that we could get as close as possible. Even though you can't make a proof on 100% certain grounds, you can get very close. Before Gödel the idea was that math is a 100% secure and enclosed platonic system.
@Reivann At least I don't think he attempted to create another system of logics. It is very confusing though, and it makes me feel like math and the natural sciences are not really solid sciences. I don't want to make that claim though, as I know way too little about these issues. The only hope is to study more and see if there is a light somewhere that can guide us!
@astroboomboy He thought that he could get as close as possible.... :(... not knowing how close can he only be. I think solving these stuff is highly addictive -- becoming a habit -- to the point of bringing obsessive compulsions. And yep, :) , I hope there'd be some light for us here. And in case that happens, I think it the answer will be elegant and beautiful. :) Anyway, thanks again, astroboomboy. :)
I cant believe the immense amount that I've learned since watching this very video five months ago. Thanks for inspiring/challenging so many great minds, BBC!
And @informateux / @thecommutation Obvious statements, sorry. No need to reply to my first comment. More of a challenge to keep people watching, I'd say.
As the documentary is vague concerning the meaning of the uncertainy-theorem, it also implies some incorrect biographical facts about Gödel: He was paranoid all through his life, and didn't become mad because he "glimpsed at the abyss", or was misunderstood (the worth of his work for example, was immediately recognized by John von Neuman),he spent much of his life in the us and became a us-citizen, maybe that's why he got no bust. Either way, there's the Gödel-Institut named in honor of him...
When I went to university and first came in contact with Gödel's Theorem I became very upset with what I learned. It took me some time to come to terms with it but eventually I did just accepted it as it was in the end. To all young men and women out there: thinking to deep about these matters just drives one crazy...
Why so many thousands of hysterical people scream wildly for just a glimpse of their favorite celebrities have always fascinated me. For me it's brilliant scientist that are the real rock stars, I would LOVE just to have a conversation with one of them.
@TheCommutation Yes, that may be. But also take into consideration: the certain people that search these documentaries, I'd hope, have more patients and intellect than that of the average 'browser' does. Like someone said in response to my comment before, "the story is depressing, no wonder people stop watching" was put best.
Of course there is no god anyone with a half a brain knows that. What I've been getting from this is that its not literally "God" who is dying its the concept of "God" being an absolute answer to what "they" didn't understand is whats dying.
I don't believe the documentary is about geniuses going insane. I think it is about how great minds-minds ahead of their time- made discoveries that shook the foundations of their own beliefs -religious, philosophical, professional beliefs-
It is only logical that without the support of their peers, they became isolated, insane and self destructive. This is not however, I think, the emphasys of the documentary.
Perhaps a discovery was made by all which inticed them to commit suicide. Guess I have to watch all episodes to see if that analyzation was ever made.
Also, the question remains: where these guys mathematicians who went insane, or insane people who took on mathematics in their madness.. Not everybody is getting mad from doing maths.
Having watched 7 parts of this movie, I don't think I understand anything more of the maths than when I started watching. It would be useful if they explained more about these theories like they did with the circle in the beginning. Otherwise this is just a tea talk.
hahaha this video is a part of that fear that they try to scare you from knowing too much...but its all good homie.but that perfecct balance is everywhere and in everyone.find it
The problems of infinity and certainty are only problems in an universe still using an outdated paradigm. Most 'scientists' fight desperately to cling onto old outworn ways of thinking about the true nature of the 'universe' and thus come to the inevitable brickwall in understanding. The solution has been known for thousands of years, but people, for many reasons, don't change their fixed ideas- they just die. You work it out.
God of the gaps - just don't degrade this as a first principle, then life becomes an exciting discovery process. The problem with science is that is doesn't have the concept of grace.
I appreciate the stories behind this documentary, but the 'dramatic recreations' of these logicians going nuts are stupid. Apparently, being confounded by a math problem means that you hallucinate like you've overdosed on LSD, watching your fingers elongate and change shape.
These men were plagued by EMOTIONAL problems. Depression, loneliness, and hopelessness. They didn't start tripping balls and see pink elephants.
Ppl want the representation to also BE the represented but those are 2 different ontological distinctions. So of course math will reach a chasm of which it cannot bridge. But that's where spirituality comes in and one must connect and be one with everything and therefore without inferential methodologies can we really know the deeper truths of reality. That said, once you know you can't talk about it because any language merely destroys the truth of reality. Use words or math to describe rednes
Idk what's da big deal. Of course logic has limits. It's the study of valid inferences. there are things that just can't be inferred like what it's like to be me. Some things have to be just known without inference. ThAts spiritual or inner knowledge. Logic represents that outer knowledge. As a language, math suffers the limits of language as language uses symbols to represent things.
@mattysimsoficial I don't blame people for not wanting to keep watching these videos. These stories are depressing. These brilliant mathematicians are driven nuts by their internal demons. They go nuts, they have breakdowns, they go into mental institutions, they commit suicide. I'm grateful now that I had to struggle to get a B in math.
@baalisgod666 It was a rhetorical question. If it's stupid, then so be it. It's obvious this topic will not be for everyone and that a lot of people won't watch all the parts. I was just pointing out that the same will happen, without fail, with any kind of video with multiple parts.
@mattysimsoficial its hard for me to keep watching, most of this is nonsense, and its becoming clear that its more about saying that god doesnt exist, through presumptions that the world is chaotic, than anything else.. these great asses of science love holding up the banner of proof, yet they dont prove shit.. the whole system is based on holding to claims, and waiting for others to prove them wrong! they practice the things they say others cant do
@longfootbuddy If this is upsetting you about not tenting to your religious views, then piss off. Me and the whole science community could care less about your made up man in the sky ruling everything! That is nonsense, not this video.
@mattysimsoficial hes no man, fool.. and he knows you and your scientists will lead the world into a nwo order.. its all part of the plan.. you are dim wits that cant see your errors.. but the times to come will pass
It would absolutely drive me mad too. My greatest downfall in learning maths is when I cannot understand the CONCEPT behind the reason some formula or something works. It will cripple my ability to do the work via loss of confidence. I MUST understand a concept before I can effectively utilize it when I am learning maths, this be especially true in Algebra.
@thinktothemax I'm not trying to expose you because there is nothing to expose. I'm just a curious guy that doesn't know any better about the bigger picture but why hasn't he talked to me yet?
@Dolphidood Oh in that case, if your talking about literally speaking I haven't experienced that either, probably for lack of complete balance/commitment with God, man that sounds bad to say but Im working on that. I'd explain what I mean by that but for lack of time and space you'll have to wait till I finish my book to learn about what I mean.
@thinktothemax No, it just hasn't occurred to me as God's voice, I don't sense him through nature. I'm sorry could you explain what you mean a little bit more not the whole thing as its too complex apparently?
@Dolphidood No not to complex at all, just seeing his handy work though nature is how you can "sense" him. Such as how complex and detailed everything is created. Think of this as a video game when your in it you see and experience all the mechanics, rules, detailed creations, maps, environments etc. you never see the creators of the video game but you get the messages they put in there for you.
@thinktothemax So what you're saying is that all though many people can arrive at many different interpretations of the world the right interpretation is yours and I must believe you? The problem that I have with that is that an interpretation is not necessarily reality but it is the result of ones mere ability to conceptualise the world around them. We can't assume (which we must to conceptualise in the first place) that anything is true when there's a possibility of another outcome.
@Dolphidood Well just as a game you could pretend the rules aren't there and ignore them but your interpretation of the game then changes to something foolish. This universe has rules of balance, logic, gravity, etc. and if you ignore them your interpretation of this word becomes foolish. So potentially, as conceded as this sounds, yes the right interpretation could be mine.
@thinktothemax Yes it could potentially be yours or mine or even my next door neighbour's but then considering my position why would you expect me to trust you? I understand that there are people that have poor interpretations on different aspects of 'reality' however triumph in others like take Stevie Wonder... I think he's one of the best musicians alive and ever but he's blind... I wouldn't even think about calling him foolish which he would have to be as he has to 'ignore' sight.
@Dolphidood lol I don't expect you to trust me. By no means am I calling people without the ability to see, hear, or speak unable to understand the world. I'm talking about people who willingly or by mistake ignore more important things than sight such as logic.
@thinktothemax Yes and logic does show to people that it doesn't necessarily make sense to believe in a God it is simply mere intuition and conceptualisation that one can arrive at the conclusion of God by no means does it actually involve one sitting down and working out mathematically(logical thinking at its full capacity) that there is a God and there is no full proof which works with everyone's perception yet. You kinda would if you expect me to take you seriously in what you say about him.
...sometimes the question "WHY" is dangerous....no disrespect to this great people who wanted/ attempted to explain the complexity of life but the prize they've paid is their sanity...it only proves that their is really a God who thinks better than we do....
Who is to say that paradoxes are even a problem? just because we don't like paradoxes isn't to state they are impossible even though we grow up in a realm of existence with some certainty and no impossibilities who is to know if it only appears possible because it made us.
How can you proof, or even demonstrate that it is impossible to proof some things. Its a negative claim, like the fact its impossible to proof that unicorns don't exist. (o.0)
This makes no sence at all, i'm probebly an ignorent fool, but it makes no sence at all.
This means all things are already accomplished before they manifest in our reality. In our reality we can resist those changes, but to do so is only choosing to suffer. But rather constantly seek new knowledge to that you will be blessed with having the fore site (certainty-prophet) that you will have what it takes to react to whatever changes occur in the present, which are already pre-determined by man by what he and she collectively dream (praying for in the future - hope).
I recomnend reading "Gödel's Theorem - an incomplete Guide to its use and abuse" by Torkel Franzen, ISBN: 1-56881-238-8.
This documentary is nice to watch, but it is partially incorrect, and important bits are left out. E.g.: Gödel partially "solved" the continuum hypothesis in 1940, by proving it cannot be disproven. Paul Cohen proved it cannot be proven in 1963.
Unfortunately, the documentary focuses too much on "math drives people insane" instead of providing correct content.
@jaaahson But thats what the title is all about and it will cover its ground, which clearly did, and shew the insanity that it can might may lead one to.
@jaaahson i doubt the vast majority of viewers would sit through an entire documentary on math history. the point of a documentary like this is to get people questioning, not to provide answers to those without questions in the first place.
@jaaahson But, didn't the documentary showed he didn't finish his definition before getting sick? and, while sick, he said he has solved, then again he said he didn't. So, maybe, if he didn't get sick, he could discover a way deeply hiden, I mean, the second part of his work (or the end of it) wich just didn't happen. So what whoever proved wrong? To prove it wrong u should deduce what the missing part was and if someone did so, this one would be kinda like a pioneer with the true one: Cantor.
@FrancisHut The brain is a closed system, so it can always improve infinitely, and it will always contain paradoxes and uncertainties. This is in effect what Gödels principles say about the human mind and computers. They can never be certain, and there is always a limit to something outside of it.
@astroboomboy It's not unlimited because it's a closed system. I don't know if it's unlimited, I hope it's not. Kinda recent studies said there's a limit scientists can't define well, but there is. I don't agree with the apparent final answer from that discover, because if there's a limit, our brain will probably change while the evolution is happening till it gets what we need, a different brain certainly means different limits, and if it can get different in evolution, it means..... lol
@Siphida His ideas are not about what we can understand of the universe. It's just a mathematical proof that shows the limits of proving everything within a formal system. It does not have anything to do with our understanding of the universe. If you want to understand what are limits in terms of ontological understanding is, read Kant's critique of practical reason. Gödel is only a proof regarding formal math and logics.
I am a financial economics student and I feel so fucking insignificant when I see documentaries like this. Me and my colleageus are so insanely focused on business strategies and financial markets, but what for? I will not lie, because of money. Why do people go to MBA and have a "successful" life? because more money means you can own more THINGS. And that is THE POINT of ordinary people's lives.
As I am sending my resume for a job, I am watching this documentary and wondering why I even breath
@rainzoro excuse me if I might get a little obtrusive, but reread your comment, and poder how their 'insights' are destructive, it is no coincidence that you feel this way, for if your mind is ineffective, reality nothing but a flux of madness and happiness impossible, then you might indeed just give up. a rational philosophy would tell you that you should live a good life, that means follow your career make money and be happy, realize that doing just that IS the good,
@Augustinephillips Seeing all your efforts in trying to insult, psychologically, I can see that you are somehow offended by my comment, which to me seems like I have triggered your defense mechanism. You are simply trying to justify your own little life, but let me tell you again that you've picked the wrong target. Godel is not disproving human logics in general, but the flaw in number theory. Such work may seem deconstructive in short term point of view, but really is the opposite.
@Augustinephillips Also, please don't waste your time again typing words like "pussy, ineffective" because not only it does no real work in humiliation, it also proves your incompetence as a logician. Think about it for a second rationally, by what purpose and reason did you use the word "pussy?" Know when to use your emotionality and rationality because usually it's not a smart thing to use both at the same time.
haha! Cool...see...if you think about what you wrote...it might drive a genius crazy...
not to get tooo philosophical...but these guys all lived in a time where only "ONE" answer can exist...today we can handle the fact that something can be "TRUE and FALSE" at the same time...well maybe not that much better...
@leadandflow I'm not sure I believe that paradoxes exist. Usually when a paradox appear, it only means that at least one of the statement is false. I believe that logiciens believe that too and that's why some people may lose their sanity in looking for the fallacy that created the paradoxe. The disturbing fact is that geniuses such as CAntor, Bolzman, Godel, and Turing haven't been able to find the fallacy and destroy the paradoxes...
How can imperfect beings even attempt to understand pure reason. lol Just a little paradox.
Incompleteness :O Can it be applied to God? Funny how one sided arguments become with people asking for proof of something that could be understood as obvious, then applied.
Maybe Kurt Gödel proved that fundamental logic does require a type of faith, or automatic unquestioned acceptance.
I wish they would go into further detail on the formulas and what they were.
very interesting how science and Mathmatics begins to catch up with spiritual theology and they prove eachother true. That the unknowable is unknowable and that our brains and methods of understanding cannot apply to the infinite.
@RicRagsLive David Malone would be spinning his wheels trying to explain abstract algebra, infinitessimal calculus, chaos or set thory. I was surprised they were spinning those infinite integrals around in the begining when he talked about georg cantor's work. It's not easy to understand and very difficult to do it mathematically to people who have no idea what a derivative is.
It is so rare to meet anyone who would admit to have made a mistake... I will need some time to recover..LOL! They would not 'speak' Maya as noone knows what Maya sounded like, but they may have learnt to decifer the language as I think Richard Feynman did in his time.. Is he the physicist you were refering to? Something that cannot be thought by human is the correct answer to this question... LOL!! Amicalement, CED
Well... why shouldnt I admit it. I make a lot of mistakes all the time.
Okay now I got your point. You mean that one cannot teach mayan accent. That surely is true. I didnt refer to Feynman but to his rival and arch enemy Murray Gell-Mann. Feynman made fun out of him because of that.
So... do you know something that cannot be thought by human?
Yes.. I did answer it. Let me rephrase it. One thing that cannot be thought by human is: the answer to your question ! (of course I don't know the answer myself, because i can't think of one... But whatever it is, this IS something that cannot be thought by human.. LOL
LOL! Same spirit even if formulated with different words. My turn now.. Do you think it possible that God could create a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it?...
Let me put it this way: There must be some kind of interaction in the real world, if the thought experiment is really applied to reality, in a way that God would create such a rock, then he develops the skill of lifting it and then creates another rock that is still unliftable for him in the beginning whereafter he is able again and so on.
@VannevarBush Thumb up for your response! Although God being God He would not 'develop the skill' of anything being fully skilled ay everything for eternity, etc.. Which would leave Him incapable(lol!) of creating something so heavy that He would lack the skills to lift... But then if He can't create that rock, He's not God..!
I know this logical paradox, but in the real world this depends on a lot of side effects and conditions like interaction, which is a necessary requirement for existence (if sth. does not interact it is not perceptable and assuming its existence were pointless) or the definition of god. In my case god would be more like chaos or the universe itself, which makes the last part of the riddle easier.
I see that a lot depends on the definition we may have of God.. I had in mind the one described in the Bible, Here's one paradoxe I like because there's no easy way out... 'If I tell you that i always tell lies, am I telling you the truth?'
There is really no easy way out but one could use a statistical backdoor and claim that you are lying while saying this. Because it is more probable that you do not always lie. Actually it can be solved by using multi-value-logic or fuzzy logic in a similar way but the proof is more complicated and I dont remember it exactly.
Another way out in Aristotelian logic is the fact that your sentence is a metasentence ..but this way is quite unsatisfying.
Generally speaking if the extent of our knowledge is infinite then there will always be questions and if everything can be related then that means that everything has too many relationships to find any solid pattern that can be completely proved. My question is, is anything completely provable hypothetically?
Our collected body of knowledge is less than a teardrop in all the oceans combined...when compared to what is out there in the vast unknown and what will remain unknowable
i think 1 thing is proven, human mind has limits... there will always be unsolve mysteries anywhere and everywhere... it takes more than 1 brain and more than 1 life time to solve 1 issue of them.
It's pretty interesting how even science is influence by the temperament of the times and of its scientists. When we do something, it has a lot to do with our own beliefs, experiences, human urges. Nothing is as it seems..
This is inaccurate. They are trying to connect Godel's work to his mental problems, to try to support the claims of this knowledge being "dangerous". In fact, Godel probably just had psychological problems like Boltzmann, psychological problems that had nothing to do with the enormity of the work he was doing.
that dude released his d.m.t. that's funny ''his mathematical search to order reality bent time &space itself''''it is not the spoon that bends it is you''
They must have taken Chaitin out of context (he couldn't possibly be that ignorant of modern logic) because as he is a computer scientist he of all people should know what it is modern logicians do more often than not and why that isolated statement he gave makes no sense : they provide formal systems modeling processes that often are used in theoretical and practical computer science and artificial intelligence.
I would not call what you wrote a paradox. It only seems paradoxical due to the nature of words. In actuality, I prefer to call it something much simpler: a misunderstanding. That is, to think we know something when we really do not. Just a thought.
you cant prove this guy is right or wrong
Peralisc 4 months ago
@Peralisc He proved his theories. One of his proofs is quite easy to understand. Read the article on wikipedia for a general introduction. The basis idea is that any closed system can't prove every axiom within itself (or every valid truth in itself). Any closed system always needs new axioms to prove everything within it (even though they are true). And any open system is inconsistent.
astroboomboy 4 months ago
Ha! I KNEW there was a good reason behind my innate distaste for mathematics! If you do it enough, it makes you crazy and kills you!
talitakoomi 4 months ago
Trying to understand god with math is like trying to measure love with a tape measure.
vet4piece 4 months ago
I am lost. Why did Gödel try to solve the Continuum theory of Cantor if his on the side which stands on the belief that some things just can't be proved?
Reivann 4 months ago
@Reivann You can have mathematical proofs, the problem is that the axioms you use to prove something can't be proven with the axioms themselves. You always have to go out of the system, ad infinitum. Math is still useful, but you can't have complete certainty of your proofs, because there will always be a paradox within the system you are using to claim your proofs. Math can still be used to describe the world, and math is still valid, it's just not fully certain.
astroboomboy 4 months ago
@astroboomboy Thanks for answering. :) So you mean, basically, Gödel just wants to say that math can't be certain on its proofs. But it has the capacity to ascribe what infinity is?
Reivann 4 months ago
@Reivann Actually, infinity is one of the biggest problems in math, and you can't really prove what infinity is (but you can make conjectures and claims that might not be proven). What Gödel says is that you can make proofs, but there will always be a "problem" with the logic used to make that proof. This has to do with the axioms one uses in math. The axioms can't prove their own logical grounds, and need a bigger system. But the bigger system also needs a bigger system, ad infinitum!
astroboomboy 4 months ago
@Reivann Oh, and I'm a little bit uncertain about infinity. I don't know much about it, as the proofs often use very complex set theory that I don't understand. But I don't think it is possible to make valid proofs about infinity as a whole, but you can contain infinity in certain sets and make claims about these sets. But there will always be something outside of each set, so infinity can't really be contained (not the ultimate infinity at least, hehe).
astroboomboy 4 months ago
@astroboomboy Ah, well.. that's why I got confused. XD. :( -- Gödel thought that there could be a "problem" with the logic used to make proofs. I am not sure if I am getting the drift, but did he think that maths can solve the problem on infinity left by Cantor? I find it ironic that Gödel tried to prove something that might be unprovable via logic (which is his claim). Or was he trying to create another system of thinking aside from logic?
Reivann 4 months ago
@Reivann No, he did not attempt to create another system. He maintained that one had to accept the problems, and the problem isn't really as fundamental as many claim. He thought that the problem had to do with the nature of god, that we are unable to fully grasp it. But he still thought that we could get as close as possible. Even though you can't make a proof on 100% certain grounds, you can get very close. Before Gödel the idea was that math is a 100% secure and enclosed platonic system.
astroboomboy 4 months ago
@Reivann At least I don't think he attempted to create another system of logics. It is very confusing though, and it makes me feel like math and the natural sciences are not really solid sciences. I don't want to make that claim though, as I know way too little about these issues. The only hope is to study more and see if there is a light somewhere that can guide us!
astroboomboy 4 months ago
@astroboomboy He thought that he could get as close as possible.... :(... not knowing how close can he only be. I think solving these stuff is highly addictive -- becoming a habit -- to the point of bringing obsessive compulsions. And yep, :) , I hope there'd be some light for us here. And in case that happens, I think it the answer will be elegant and beautiful. :) Anyway, thanks again, astroboomboy. :)
Reivann 4 months ago
I cant believe the immense amount that I've learned since watching this very video five months ago. Thanks for inspiring/challenging so many great minds, BBC!
And @informateux / @thecommutation Obvious statements, sorry. No need to reply to my first comment. More of a challenge to keep people watching, I'd say.
mattysimsoficial 4 months ago
Comment removed
FrancisHut 5 months ago
As the documentary is vague concerning the meaning of the uncertainy-theorem, it also implies some incorrect biographical facts about Gödel: He was paranoid all through his life, and didn't become mad because he "glimpsed at the abyss", or was misunderstood (the worth of his work for example, was immediately recognized by John von Neuman),he spent much of his life in the us and became a us-citizen, maybe that's why he got no bust. Either way, there's the Gödel-Institut named in honor of him...
kindric 5 months ago
When I went to university and first came in contact with Gödel's Theorem I became very upset with what I learned. It took me some time to come to terms with it but eventually I did just accepted it as it was in the end. To all young men and women out there: thinking to deep about these matters just drives one crazy...
jomen112 5 months ago
Fly too close to the sun, or stare too long into the fire, and your doomed.
baalisgod666 5 months ago
I think the aim of this video is to tell people truth hurts.
silvisakeru 5 months ago
Why so many thousands of hysterical people scream wildly for just a glimpse of their favorite celebrities have always fascinated me. For me it's brilliant scientist that are the real rock stars, I would LOVE just to have a conversation with one of them.
lmos26 6 months ago 2
@lmos26 me too. Science rocks.
baalisgod666 5 months ago
BBC should think about getting into horror movies since their choices in music and in screen effect are outstanding...
Writeoscar 6 months ago
It's pretty fucked up how they equate having a nervous breakdown to having psychotic delusions.
youztuber5000 7 months ago
The continuum hypothesis gives you groovy fingers!
Sapheire 7 months ago
@TheCommutation Yes, that may be. But also take into consideration: the certain people that search these documentaries, I'd hope, have more patients and intellect than that of the average 'browser' does. Like someone said in response to my comment before, "the story is depressing, no wonder people stop watching" was put best.
mattysimsoficial 7 months ago
This documentary to me seems to be about the death of God. There's no God.
ClamCrunchy 7 months ago
@ClamCrunchy
Of course there is no god anyone with a half a brain knows that. What I've been getting from this is that its not literally "God" who is dying its the concept of "God" being an absolute answer to what "they" didn't understand is whats dying.
Crackedcopskulls 7 months ago
I don't believe the documentary is about geniuses going insane. I think it is about how great minds-minds ahead of their time- made discoveries that shook the foundations of their own beliefs -religious, philosophical, professional beliefs-
It is only logical that without the support of their peers, they became isolated, insane and self destructive. This is not however, I think, the emphasys of the documentary.
mancerab3 7 months ago 3
Perhaps a discovery was made by all which inticed them to commit suicide. Guess I have to watch all episodes to see if that analyzation was ever made.
eyeluvcloe 7 months ago
Also, the question remains: where these guys mathematicians who went insane, or insane people who took on mathematics in their madness.. Not everybody is getting mad from doing maths.
adamsky0604 8 months ago
Having watched 7 parts of this movie, I don't think I understand anything more of the maths than when I started watching. It would be useful if they explained more about these theories like they did with the circle in the beginning. Otherwise this is just a tea talk.
adamsky0604 8 months ago 2
hahaha this video is a part of that fear that they try to scare you from knowing too much...but its all good homie.but that perfecct balance is everywhere and in everyone.find it
CRITIKCK 8 months ago
The problems of infinity and certainty are only problems in an universe still using an outdated paradigm. Most 'scientists' fight desperately to cling onto old outworn ways of thinking about the true nature of the 'universe' and thus come to the inevitable brickwall in understanding. The solution has been known for thousands of years, but people, for many reasons, don't change their fixed ideas- they just die. You work it out.
Modonaut57 9 months ago
at 7:40 it looks Gödel has discovered the matrix
priyochatterjee1 9 months ago 2
2:22, Challenge Accepted
Vennificus 9 months ago
God of the gaps - just don't degrade this as a first principle, then life becomes an exciting discovery process. The problem with science is that is doesn't have the concept of grace.
slack7639 9 months ago
@slack7639 The concept of "grace" is just an excuse to stop searching.
dothedeed 9 months ago
"No matter how much data you have to build on, you will never prove all true statements"
psydrummerhead 10 months ago
I appreciate the stories behind this documentary, but the 'dramatic recreations' of these logicians going nuts are stupid. Apparently, being confounded by a math problem means that you hallucinate like you've overdosed on LSD, watching your fingers elongate and change shape.
These men were plagued by EMOTIONAL problems. Depression, loneliness, and hopelessness. They didn't start tripping balls and see pink elephants.
spectreblofeld 10 months ago 2
Ppl want the representation to also BE the represented but those are 2 different ontological distinctions. So of course math will reach a chasm of which it cannot bridge. But that's where spirituality comes in and one must connect and be one with everything and therefore without inferential methodologies can we really know the deeper truths of reality. That said, once you know you can't talk about it because any language merely destroys the truth of reality. Use words or math to describe rednes
tatsumakisempyukaku 10 months ago
Idk what's da big deal. Of course logic has limits. It's the study of valid inferences. there are things that just can't be inferred like what it's like to be me. Some things have to be just known without inference. ThAts spiritual or inner knowledge. Logic represents that outer knowledge. As a language, math suffers the limits of language as language uses symbols to represent things.
tatsumakisempyukaku 10 months ago
Has anyone else noticed that the amount of views decreases after every video
mattysimsoficial 10 months ago 43
@mattysimsoficial I don't blame people for not wanting to keep watching these videos. These stories are depressing. These brilliant mathematicians are driven nuts by their internal demons. They go nuts, they have breakdowns, they go into mental institutions, they commit suicide. I'm grateful now that I had to struggle to get a B in math.
zoeyjusko 9 months ago
@mattysimsoficial and notice it goes up again at the last video people just skipped the entire thing!
0musing 8 months ago
@mattysimsoficial Why do you think that is? Interesting observation.
eyeluvcloe 7 months ago
@mattysimsoficial What would be truly surprising is if the REVERSE was the case.
DDSeever 7 months ago
@mattysimsoficial That happens with every video that has multiple parts. Your point?
SuperDrRockzo 7 months ago
@SuperDrRockzo I'll tell you his point. People get bored easily, or turn off when their brain hurts. Why ask stupid questions?
baalisgod666 5 months ago
@baalisgod666 It was a rhetorical question. If it's stupid, then so be it. It's obvious this topic will not be for everyone and that a lot of people won't watch all the parts. I was just pointing out that the same will happen, without fail, with any kind of video with multiple parts.
SuperDrRockzo 5 months ago
@baalisgod666 the goat is god eh?
undergroundjackal 5 months ago
@mattysimsoficial haha that's average people for you, people are simply dumb, content with being dumb and even strive to increase it.
lmos26 6 months ago
@mattysimsoficial not that I really care... do you think theory of incompleteness proves that no one could be wrong??? XD
silvisakeru 5 months ago
@mattysimsoficial its hard for me to keep watching, most of this is nonsense, and its becoming clear that its more about saying that god doesnt exist, through presumptions that the world is chaotic, than anything else.. these great asses of science love holding up the banner of proof, yet they dont prove shit.. the whole system is based on holding to claims, and waiting for others to prove them wrong! they practice the things they say others cant do
longfootbuddy 5 months ago
@longfootbuddy If this is upsetting you about not tenting to your religious views, then piss off. Me and the whole science community could care less about your made up man in the sky ruling everything! That is nonsense, not this video.
mattysimsoficial 5 months ago
@mattysimsoficial I know. Religion is such bullshit, its astonishing that religion is still around in the 21st century.
235RB 5 months ago 3
@mattysimsoficial hes no man, fool.. and he knows you and your scientists will lead the world into a nwo order.. its all part of the plan.. you are dim wits that cant see your errors.. but the times to come will pass
longfootbuddy 5 months ago
@mattysimsoficial this is only natural...happens in every youtube video that is split in parts...:-))
oakefaloskavliaris 4 months ago 2
@mattysimsoficial
thats because most people get bored easily
Informateux 4 months ago
1 things certain trying to understand the key to the universe sends you crazy...
HappyBirthdaySANTA 10 months ago
It would absolutely drive me mad too. My greatest downfall in learning maths is when I cannot understand the CONCEPT behind the reason some formula or something works. It will cripple my ability to do the work via loss of confidence. I MUST understand a concept before I can effectively utilize it when I am learning maths, this be especially true in Algebra.
BonniePLC 10 months ago
WOW WOW WOW insane special effects at 7:40!
frank335i 11 months ago
Their going insane trying to understand the mind of God.
thinktothemax 11 months ago
@thinktothemax Has God spoken to you?
Dolphidood 11 months ago
@Dolphidood I think he has spoken to all of us indirectly.
thinktothemax 11 months ago
@thinktothemax So you assume he has?
Dolphidood 11 months ago
@Dolphidood He has spoken and speaks to us through the Bible, through his creation, and through the laws of the universe.
thinktothemax 11 months ago
@thinktothemax I'm not trying to expose you because there is nothing to expose. I'm just a curious guy that doesn't know any better about the bigger picture but why hasn't he talked to me yet?
Dolphidood 11 months ago
@Dolphidood Oh in that case, if your talking about literally speaking I haven't experienced that either, probably for lack of complete balance/commitment with God, man that sounds bad to say but Im working on that. I'd explain what I mean by that but for lack of time and space you'll have to wait till I finish my book to learn about what I mean.
thinktothemax 11 months ago
@thinktothemax No, it just hasn't occurred to me as God's voice, I don't sense him through nature. I'm sorry could you explain what you mean a little bit more not the whole thing as its too complex apparently?
Dolphidood 11 months ago
@Dolphidood No not to complex at all, just seeing his handy work though nature is how you can "sense" him. Such as how complex and detailed everything is created. Think of this as a video game when your in it you see and experience all the mechanics, rules, detailed creations, maps, environments etc. you never see the creators of the video game but you get the messages they put in there for you.
thinktothemax 11 months ago
@thinktothemax So what you're saying is that all though many people can arrive at many different interpretations of the world the right interpretation is yours and I must believe you? The problem that I have with that is that an interpretation is not necessarily reality but it is the result of ones mere ability to conceptualise the world around them. We can't assume (which we must to conceptualise in the first place) that anything is true when there's a possibility of another outcome.
Dolphidood 11 months ago
@Dolphidood Well just as a game you could pretend the rules aren't there and ignore them but your interpretation of the game then changes to something foolish. This universe has rules of balance, logic, gravity, etc. and if you ignore them your interpretation of this word becomes foolish. So potentially, as conceded as this sounds, yes the right interpretation could be mine.
thinktothemax 11 months ago
@thinktothemax Yes it could potentially be yours or mine or even my next door neighbour's but then considering my position why would you expect me to trust you? I understand that there are people that have poor interpretations on different aspects of 'reality' however triumph in others like take Stevie Wonder... I think he's one of the best musicians alive and ever but he's blind... I wouldn't even think about calling him foolish which he would have to be as he has to 'ignore' sight.
Dolphidood 11 months ago
@Dolphidood lol I don't expect you to trust me. By no means am I calling people without the ability to see, hear, or speak unable to understand the world. I'm talking about people who willingly or by mistake ignore more important things than sight such as logic.
thinktothemax 11 months ago
@thinktothemax Yes and logic does show to people that it doesn't necessarily make sense to believe in a God it is simply mere intuition and conceptualisation that one can arrive at the conclusion of God by no means does it actually involve one sitting down and working out mathematically(logical thinking at its full capacity) that there is a God and there is no full proof which works with everyone's perception yet. You kinda would if you expect me to take you seriously in what you say about him.
Dolphidood 11 months ago
So my question is has anyone put this Question into a super computer?
Renagadepatriot 1 year ago
@Renagadepatriot 42!
nicolaiguba 11 months ago
Human Knowledge is limited, "God knows best"
kurdishleader 1 year ago
...sometimes the question "WHY" is dangerous....no disrespect to this great people who wanted/ attempted to explain the complexity of life but the prize they've paid is their sanity...it only proves that their is really a God who thinks better than we do....
....
nailspluscross 1 year ago
Who is to say that paradoxes are even a problem? just because we don't like paradoxes isn't to state they are impossible even though we grow up in a realm of existence with some certainty and no impossibilities who is to know if it only appears possible because it made us.
deanmullen10 1 year ago
How can you proof, or even demonstrate that it is impossible to proof some things. Its a negative claim, like the fact its impossible to proof that unicorns don't exist. (o.0)
This makes no sence at all, i'm probebly an ignorent fool, but it makes no sence at all.
wybo2 1 year ago
So he proved that all proofs are partial and cannot be proved? Performative contradiction?
MikeRLloyd73 1 year ago
Math is a tool... people that take it to the next level drive themselves insane.
jackooboy1 1 year ago
@jackooboy1 I quess Albert Einstein was a loon . According to your logic .
SmilyFaceEquilibrium 11 months ago
@SmilyFaceEquilibrium Guess not. He used math as a tool--he didn't go insane.
jackooboy1 11 months ago
1+1=
carsanookdotcom 1 year ago
This means all things are already accomplished before they manifest in our reality. In our reality we can resist those changes, but to do so is only choosing to suffer. But rather constantly seek new knowledge to that you will be blessed with having the fore site (certainty-prophet) that you will have what it takes to react to whatever changes occur in the present, which are already pre-determined by man by what he and she collectively dream (praying for in the future - hope).
burtonchalmers 1 year ago
"the philosopher! you know so much about nothing at ALL" - Chuck Schuldiner, Death
ThaigerDon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThaigerDon "you know so much about nothing at ALL"
That is what Katherine the great said to Voltaire.
jonesgerard 1 year ago
What the hell did he saw at 5: 24? this is creepy :)
DranzieBooy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no truth? I think you have to be out of your mind to understand the Universe, is that the point of this? So Buddha was right.
JordanPAT 1 year ago
Comment removed
JordanPAT 1 year ago
Comment removed
JordanPAT 1 year ago
I recomnend reading "Gödel's Theorem - an incomplete Guide to its use and abuse" by Torkel Franzen, ISBN: 1-56881-238-8.
This documentary is nice to watch, but it is partially incorrect, and important bits are left out. E.g.: Gödel partially "solved" the continuum hypothesis in 1940, by proving it cannot be disproven. Paul Cohen proved it cannot be proven in 1963.
Unfortunately, the documentary focuses too much on "math drives people insane" instead of providing correct content.
jaaahson 1 year ago 55
@jaaahson But thats what the title is all about and it will cover its ground, which clearly did, and shew the insanity that it can might may lead one to.
daniloorbolato 1 year ago
@jaaahson Your right on how they leave vital info out and on how math drives intellectuals insane. LOL :|
senor47 11 months ago
@jaaahson I see what your saying I hate how the do this in the Documentary.
Omegax9000 11 months ago
@jaaahson "This sentence is a lie" as my brain begins to fry.
Dolphidood 11 months ago
@jaaahson it's a movie. lighten up...that's what college classes are for.
blahbl4hblahtoo 10 months ago
@jaaahson i doubt the vast majority of viewers would sit through an entire documentary on math history. the point of a documentary like this is to get people questioning, not to provide answers to those without questions in the first place.
TheJunkmailbot 10 months ago
@jaaahson Thanks, that was an illuminating and very interesting fact.
teainthesahara 9 months ago
Comment removed
FrancisHut 5 months ago
@jaaahson But, didn't the documentary showed he didn't finish his definition before getting sick? and, while sick, he said he has solved, then again he said he didn't. So, maybe, if he didn't get sick, he could discover a way deeply hiden, I mean, the second part of his work (or the end of it) wich just didn't happen. So what whoever proved wrong? To prove it wrong u should deduce what the missing part was and if someone did so, this one would be kinda like a pioneer with the true one: Cantor.
FrancisHut 5 months ago
If it's possible for a human to get insane from pushing a suposed limit of intelligence, it means the brains NEEDS more capacity :)
FrancisHut 5 months ago
@FrancisHut The brain is a closed system, so it can always improve infinitely, and it will always contain paradoxes and uncertainties. This is in effect what Gödels principles say about the human mind and computers. They can never be certain, and there is always a limit to something outside of it.
astroboomboy 4 months ago
@astroboomboy It's not unlimited because it's a closed system. I don't know if it's unlimited, I hope it's not. Kinda recent studies said there's a limit scientists can't define well, but there is. I don't agree with the apparent final answer from that discover, because if there's a limit, our brain will probably change while the evolution is happening till it gets what we need, a different brain certainly means different limits, and if it can get different in evolution, it means..... lol
FrancisHut 3 months ago
Kurt Gödel is just one of many people who have proved that human beings are limited creations of a universe too complicated for us to fathom.
Siphida 1 year ago 2
@Siphida His ideas are not about what we can understand of the universe. It's just a mathematical proof that shows the limits of proving everything within a formal system. It does not have anything to do with our understanding of the universe. If you want to understand what are limits in terms of ontological understanding is, read Kant's critique of practical reason. Gödel is only a proof regarding formal math and logics.
astroboomboy 3 months ago
wouldn't that make his theorem also incomplete, and therefore some parts of it false making it possible for all theorems to be true? graaargh!
ajamerlan 1 year ago
@ajamerlan Incompleteness does not mean false. It means that the means to prove the theorem lie outside the limits of the theorem itself.
Erucaale 1 year ago
I am a financial economics student and I feel so fucking insignificant when I see documentaries like this. Me and my colleageus are so insanely focused on business strategies and financial markets, but what for? I will not lie, because of money. Why do people go to MBA and have a "successful" life? because more money means you can own more THINGS. And that is THE POINT of ordinary people's lives.
As I am sending my resume for a job, I am watching this documentary and wondering why I even breath
rainzoro 1 year ago
@rainzoro excuse me if I might get a little obtrusive, but reread your comment, and poder how their 'insights' are destructive, it is no coincidence that you feel this way, for if your mind is ineffective, reality nothing but a flux of madness and happiness impossible, then you might indeed just give up. a rational philosophy would tell you that you should live a good life, that means follow your career make money and be happy, realize that doing just that IS the good,
Augustinephillips 1 year ago
@Augustinephillips Seeing all your efforts in trying to insult, psychologically, I can see that you are somehow offended by my comment, which to me seems like I have triggered your defense mechanism. You are simply trying to justify your own little life, but let me tell you again that you've picked the wrong target. Godel is not disproving human logics in general, but the flaw in number theory. Such work may seem deconstructive in short term point of view, but really is the opposite.
rainzoro 1 year ago
@rainzoro PS: You're also somewhat of a pussy
Augustinephillips 1 year ago
@Augustinephillips Also, please don't waste your time again typing words like "pussy, ineffective" because not only it does no real work in humiliation, it also proves your incompetence as a logician. Think about it for a second rationally, by what purpose and reason did you use the word "pussy?" Know when to use your emotionality and rationality because usually it's not a smart thing to use both at the same time.
rainzoro 1 year ago
haha! Cool...see...if you think about what you wrote...it might drive a genius crazy...
not to get tooo philosophical...but these guys all lived in a time where only "ONE" answer can exist...today we can handle the fact that something can be "TRUE and FALSE" at the same time...well maybe not that much better...
leadandflow 1 year ago
Jeez, does anyone who studies infinity too much go crazy! The paradoxes aren't good for the brain i'm thinking....
leadandflow 1 year ago
@leadandflow I'm not sure I believe that paradoxes exist. Usually when a paradox appear, it only means that at least one of the statement is false. I believe that logiciens believe that too and that's why some people may lose their sanity in looking for the fallacy that created the paradoxe. The disturbing fact is that geniuses such as CAntor, Bolzman, Godel, and Turing haven't been able to find the fallacy and destroy the paradoxes...
cedrikledlp 1 year ago 2
How can imperfect beings even attempt to understand pure reason. lol Just a little paradox.
Incompleteness :O Can it be applied to God? Funny how one sided arguments become with people asking for proof of something that could be understood as obvious, then applied.
Maybe Kurt Gödel proved that fundamental logic does require a type of faith, or automatic unquestioned acceptance.
RoshWilliams 1 year ago
I wish they would go into further detail on the formulas and what they were.
very interesting how science and Mathmatics begins to catch up with spiritual theology and they prove eachother true. That the unknowable is unknowable and that our brains and methods of understanding cannot apply to the infinite.
RicRagsLive 1 year ago
@RicRagsLive David Malone would be spinning his wheels trying to explain abstract algebra, infinitessimal calculus, chaos or set thory. I was surprised they were spinning those infinite integrals around in the begining when he talked about georg cantor's work. It's not easy to understand and very difficult to do it mathematically to people who have no idea what a derivative is.
aesrp 1 year ago
@RicRagsLive yea..i want to know what the formulas were about..
fermerwuvu 1 year ago
Can anyone of you guys give an example of something that cannot be taught by human?
VannevarBush 1 year ago
@VannevarBush
Easy.. How to lay an egg..!
cedrikledlp 1 year ago
@cedrikledlp
This does not count since it cannot be taught at all.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
@VannevarBush I would assume that something that cannot be taught at all would include the fact that it cannot be taught by human.
Ok.. Another thing that cannot be taught by human would be how to play a music instrument that's not yet invented... Or how to speak Maya...
cedrikledlp 1 year ago
@cedrikledlp
You are totally right and I made a stupid mistake...I meant something that cannot be thaught (to think) by human. Do you know an example for this?
(Btw. I know at least two people who do speak Maya^^ one of them is a famous phsyicist)
VannevarBush 1 year ago
@VannevarBush
It is so rare to meet anyone who would admit to have made a mistake... I will need some time to recover..LOL! They would not 'speak' Maya as noone knows what Maya sounded like, but they may have learnt to decifer the language as I think Richard Feynman did in his time.. Is he the physicist you were refering to? Something that cannot be thought by human is the correct answer to this question... LOL!! Amicalement, CED
cedrikledlp 1 year ago
@cedrikledlp
Well... why shouldnt I admit it. I make a lot of mistakes all the time.
Okay now I got your point. You mean that one cannot teach mayan accent. That surely is true. I didnt refer to Feynman but to his rival and arch enemy Murray Gell-Mann. Feynman made fun out of him because of that.
So... do you know something that cannot be thought by human?
VannevarBush 1 year ago
@VannevarBush
Yes.. I did answer it. Let me rephrase it. One thing that cannot be thought by human is: the answer to your question ! (of course I don't know the answer myself, because i can't think of one... But whatever it is, this IS something that cannot be thought by human.. LOL
cedrikledlp 1 year ago
@cedrikledlp
I see, i see. My professor once said... there is a possibility that such things exist, but if they exist it is not possible to give an example.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
@VannevarBush
LOL! Same spirit even if formulated with different words. My turn now.. Do you think it possible that God could create a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it?...
cedrikledlp 1 year ago
@cedrikledlp
Of course...^^
Let me put it this way: There must be some kind of interaction in the real world, if the thought experiment is really applied to reality, in a way that God would create such a rock, then he develops the skill of lifting it and then creates another rock that is still unliftable for him in the beginning whereafter he is able again and so on.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
@VannevarBush Thumb up for your response! Although God being God He would not 'develop the skill' of anything being fully skilled ay everything for eternity, etc.. Which would leave Him incapable(lol!) of creating something so heavy that He would lack the skills to lift... But then if He can't create that rock, He's not God..!
cedrikledlp 1 year ago
@cedrikledlp
I know this logical paradox, but in the real world this depends on a lot of side effects and conditions like interaction, which is a necessary requirement for existence (if sth. does not interact it is not perceptable and assuming its existence were pointless) or the definition of god. In my case god would be more like chaos or the universe itself, which makes the last part of the riddle easier.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
@VannevarBush
I see that a lot depends on the definition we may have of God.. I had in mind the one described in the Bible, Here's one paradoxe I like because there's no easy way out... 'If I tell you that i always tell lies, am I telling you the truth?'
cedrikledlp 1 year ago
@cedrikledlp
There is really no easy way out but one could use a statistical backdoor and claim that you are lying while saying this. Because it is more probable that you do not always lie. Actually it can be solved by using multi-value-logic or fuzzy logic in a similar way but the proof is more complicated and I dont remember it exactly.
Another way out in Aristotelian logic is the fact that your sentence is a metasentence ..but this way is quite unsatisfying.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
Truly a true title to the documentary- Dangerous knowledge.
ajaypatel75 1 year ago
@ajaypatel75 exactly!
fermerwuvu 1 year ago
Better read my 5 books on Gödel, e.g. with John Casti: Gödel-a life of logic! the others are in German.
jimmz25 1 year ago
If my bodies mind tricks 'me' into thinking I have a self what does it trick? AHHHH
CHRISTMASBASTARD 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CHRISTMASBASTARD "If my bodies mind tricks 'me' into thinking I have a self what does it trick? AHHHH "
It tricks you, self is ego , ego is a sentient presence not under your control.
You are not your ego but your ego thinks it is you.
jonesgerard 1 year ago
Generally speaking if the extent of our knowledge is infinite then there will always be questions and if everything can be related then that means that everything has too many relationships to find any solid pattern that can be completely proved. My question is, is anything completely provable hypothetically?
CHRISTMASBASTARD 1 year ago
satanism....
YAHWEHisperfect 1 year ago
Comment removed
sky9113 1 year ago
@YAHWEHisperfect You're eather a religious nut or an complete idiot
sky9113 1 year ago
fuck these youtube comments i wish i could turn them off
criticaljimmk 1 year ago
@criticaljimmk ignore them, just as i ignored you ;-)
TheRavingRandomist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRavingRandomist fuck me just as i fucked ur mom
criticaljimmk 1 year ago
Our collected body of knowledge is less than a teardrop in all the oceans combined...when compared to what is out there in the vast unknown and what will remain unknowable
lyletteg 1 year ago
@lyletteg to me anyway
TheRavingRandomist 1 year ago
Did you hear about the constipated mathematician? He worked it out with a pencil
Oscar301 1 year ago
i think 1 thing is proven, human mind has limits... there will always be unsolve mysteries anywhere and everywhere... it takes more than 1 brain and more than 1 life time to solve 1 issue of them.
DarkswordSerathus 1 year ago
we will never understand everything, thats the beutiful part :)
sockyb 1 year ago
It's pretty interesting how even science is influence by the temperament of the times and of its scientists. When we do something, it has a lot to do with our own beliefs, experiences, human urges. Nothing is as it seems..
Renegen1 1 year ago
The more we know the less we know. A paradox of the Nth degree.
The fact that man can ask these questions boggles the mind to no end.
We are nothing. We have no answers, yet we are.
Dorothyinstead 1 year ago
This is inaccurate. They are trying to connect Godel's work to his mental problems, to try to support the claims of this knowledge being "dangerous". In fact, Godel probably just had psychological problems like Boltzmann, psychological problems that had nothing to do with the enormity of the work he was doing.
angela1894 1 year ago
that dude released his d.m.t. that's funny ''his mathematical search to order reality bent time &space itself''''it is not the spoon that bends it is you''
ninjafretshadow 1 year ago
And no matter how rich,famous or powerful you become,
the size of your funeral will still just pretty much depend on the weather!
skogquist 1 year ago
They must have taken Chaitin out of context (he couldn't possibly be that ignorant of modern logic) because as he is a computer scientist he of all people should know what it is modern logicians do more often than not and why that isolated statement he gave makes no sense : they provide formal systems modeling processes that often are used in theoretical and practical computer science and artificial intelligence.
Baustrophedonic 2 years ago
@Baustrophedonic
it is obvious that you didn't get
what Chaitin was getting at ;-)
TheRavingRandomist 1 year ago
Gödel is one of my absolute heroes in history.
ThatGuyFromAustria 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what is there to know? nothing! there is nothing but dust divine energy.
everything else is man-made including knowledge
EyonDreams 2 years ago
It takes a lot of intelligence to understand that we do not know anything at all. A paradox, yes??
thechaz83 2 years ago 61
@thechaz83
Humility and common sense often passes for intelligence.
We don't know squat but we can know truth.
jonesgerard 1 year ago 2
I would not call what you wrote a paradox. It only seems paradoxical due to the nature of words. In actuality, I prefer to call it something much simpler: a misunderstanding. That is, to think we know something when we really do not. Just a thought.
yr1ntrly 1 year ago