UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Nov > Nov 2

Re: Can't Stop Seeing UFOs

From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:34:23 +0000
Archived: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 12:14:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Can't Stop Seeing UFOs

>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 20:00:17 -0000
>Subject: Re: Can't Stop Seeing UFOs


>Godel's theorem says that mathematics is merely human, and
>anyway deeply flawed).

No, not really, Ray.

Godel's incompleteness theorems actually show that it is claims
for the completeness and consistency of axiomatic systems that
are deeply flawed, not mathematics itself. Godel discredited the
lingering neoplatonism that underpins the view that mathematics
represents some sort of perfect, absolute truth. Post Godel
mathematics still works perfectly well, but we need to have a
much more sophisticated view as to its limitations and the
claims that can made by it or supported by it.

This is linked to the subject matter of a previous post:


This one has been kicking around frontier physics for a little
while now.

There are all sorts of interesting implications. The ones that
interest me revolve around the status of axioms in logical
structures. Think of physics as a coherent set of interconnected
logical structures. The fundamental laws upon which these
structures are built act as the meta-system's axioms. The
validity of the whole structure cannot be separated from the
validity of the axioms. If the axioms can be shown to be
variable, then the ability of the structure to deliver absolute
certainty is compromised. So certainty is shown to be non-
absolute and to be conditional upon a given particular 'state'
of the axioms, and those 'states' can vary.

Implication: if these states can vary then, theoretically at
least, the 'laws of nature' can be changed by human action.
Raise this point with physicists and there will be a stampede to
point out why this cannot happen. Inductive reasoning leads me
to conclude that the only reason it cannot happen is that we
haven't yet worked out how to make it happen.

This is not the same as saying that the laws of physics/nature
are flawed. They work pretty well. It's just that people haven't
properly come to terms with what they amount to, and that they
cannot be relied upon to deliver absolute truths and absolute
certainty in quite the way that those people would like.

Why do I labour the point? Simply because bald acceptance of
propositions like 'mathematics is deeply flawed' opens the door
to the worst kind of postmodern mysticism and threatens the
hard-won gains of Enlightenment thinking. And I'm resolutely
anti anti-Enlightenmentism.


>It could be that we'll face (or are facing now) a deeply
>solipsist AI mind(s) (we'd maybe call it extremely 'autistic')
>which thinks it's 'entertaining' or even 'educational' to fool
>around with the perceptions of primitive organics like us?

You may wish to consider an alternative scenario: maybe
'tricksterism' and its associated manifestations are merely the
result of ongoing malfunctions in the mechanisms that are
posited as guiding our development. Just because a civilisation
is far more advanced than ours, that doesn't mean it is going to
be fault-free.


Gerald O'Connell

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com