So you didn't really mention almost anything, you also didn't explain why you believe in anything perry marshall says or why we should trust him or why do you think what he said is true, are you a scientist expert in the incompleteness theory?
...
It seems to me that you are the one who needs to read more about the incompleteness theorem and what it means. The argument of perry marshall is the same god of gaps, as always.
You are starting to sound like badecker.
Ok let's review some logic 101:
If you want to try and prove that an argument is internally inconsistent you first have to state it in formal language.
In the case of Perry Marshall's argument the talk of circles is non-formal language that he used to simplify and conceptualise his argument for lay readers. Below is his argument in formal language.
Stated in Formal Language:
Gödels theorem says: Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.
The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.
Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.)
Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.
Syllogism:
1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete
2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete
The rest of his essay starts from the assumption that the universe is finite. If the universe is both finite and incomplete we can then deduce certain basic properties of what lies outside of the universe.
You ask why believe in anything perry marshall says, why we should trust him, and why do you think what he said is true?
Logic is not about belief or trust it is about identifying arguments. Logic tells us that if something is true then something else must be true. You don't need to trust or believe Perry Marshall you just need to follow his logic and then decide if you agree with his assumptions.
As Perry Marshall stated "Incompleteness of the universe isnt proof that God exists. However, it is proof that in constructing a rational,
scientific model of the universe, belief in God is 100% logical."
You have already essentially conceded the same point upthread.
God as a concept is obviously not possible to be proved false
You might follow his logic but how do you know what he is saying is right when literally everyone else says the incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to the universe? You are trusting perry marshall which is a random guy on the internet because you think his logic is right.
I already gave you arguments on why his logic is wrong.
''Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, were drawing a circle around all of them too):
There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
As discussed, GIT doesn't imply the existence of things outside of a system - simply that the system can ask questions about itself that it can't answer.''
I mean we can already stop here because he is already wrong, do you not agree?
''nteresting angle. But, even allowing the step where he claims that GIT implies the existence of something physically outside the universe (of which more below), it breaks down quite trivially where Perry Marshall then inserts a religious position into that,
and claims that that is the logical thing to do. No, the logical thing to do at that point would be to recognise that one had reached a point where a consequence of incompleteness had become crucial, and then explore further axioms that one might assume in order to complete the particular gap that one had arrived at. One could use a religious position as an axiom - but what would be the point, scientifically? Axioms should be as simple as possible, and the assumption that there is a complex set of interacting and anthropomorphic forces out there acting on us (as described by most religions in their god concept) would be both way more complex and less specific than would be sensible.
It is worth remembering that the devisings of religions are always in response to a sense of incompleteness (though not the mathematical sense used by Godel) - and so GIT will naturally make people think of religious comparisons, whatever they personally may think of religiousness. But existing religions are all a throwing up of the hands that occurred in response to problems that we as a people have now long since solved... Sun gods and creation stories? We know a bit more about cosmology, geology and biology now. Maybe one day we will demonstrate that we have reached the limit of knowledge in some direction - but we don't seem to be anywhere near that limit in any direction yet!
However, to return to an earlier point as promised, there is a second big philosophical hole in this... GIT asserts that, in any sufficiently interesting system (and "interesting" has quite a low threshold here), there exist statements about that system that you cannot prove - not that things physically exist outside of that system. It says that a system cannot physically describe itself in total completeness, not that things are required to exist outside that system in order to make it look more complete.
Using GIT to assert that things must exist outside of the universe is not logical.''
If you like logic so much. Aren't the points mentioned above logical?
Again all the logical flaws and wrong assumptions are stated here:
http://tromboneforum.org/index.php?topic=55839.0;imodeYou just chose to believe perry marshall for some reason.