The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[Cat's Squirrel]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I'm referring to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, CS.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic. The theorems, proven by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The two results are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible, giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem.
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems


I spent months understanding it, because another ex said it was Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem that got him out of Scn. From this, the ex concluded that Scientology could not be a basic truth and left. Understanding Goedel's logic (but not his math - that was over my head) was the most difficult brain task I've undertaken in years but it was worth it. I won't delve further into it, though, except to mention that there is much more to this than you think.

I don't see any inconsistency between that and what I said. I'm happy to stand corrected if there is.

I hate to give any succour to Scientologists here, but there is a difference between mathematics and almost any other endeavour that I'm aware of (including philosophy) in that mathematicians have complete freedom to define both the form and the content of their axioms, and once they've done so, those axioms become givens. Philosophers don't; they regard (and have to) everything as fair game for investigation, and the same would be even more true (or just as true) of a spiritual system where you are dealing with our nature as spiritual beings.

Scientology sucked, as far as it did, not because Godel proved that any system of axioms had to result in undecidables but because LRH's map of the terrain was very inaccurate.

(OK, and a host of other reasons as well; it was designed to control people, as I'm still discovering).

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

duplicate post

 

[JustSheila]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

There were long discussions about it on other threads a few years ago, CS. I'm not going to go into it again. It was exciting and fun to discuss it at the time, but it's not all fresh for me now and I have no desire to take it on again. That was really hard stuff for me.

The ex of which I speak is not typical - he was very highly educated with an Oxford degree and perfectly capable of understanding Gödel's Theorems in full. All true. He's in the grad records.

FYI, in short, because mathematics has errors at the most fundamental, basic level, and because our other sciences are based on mathematics, mathematics itself has shortcomings and is therefore incapable of detecting errors in things bigger than itself that would contradict mathematics itself. So mathematics itself is incapable of producing a single axiomatic science. And mathematics is the best physical science we have.

You may disagree, but you'd have to really dig in and see the earlier threads and honestly, CS, I don't want to discuss it again. It blew my mind at the time, though. I love Godel.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: There is no time.

Maria would probably answer this better than I could, but my understanding of Godel isn't so much that mathematics will always contain errors, but that some things in mathematics will always remain mysteries; i.e. no matter which axioms you start from, there will always be propositions within the mathematical system defined by those axioms whose truth will be undecidable.

If you're interested in Godel, btw, there's a bit about him in Rudy Rucker's "Infinity and the Mind" (Rucker knew Godel, at least slightly).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Infinity-Mind-Philosophy-Infinite-Princeton/dp/0691121273

I am not that well studied in physics. Lean more to philosophy and literature....however do find interesting metaphysical implications in what I do know. And feel lucky when I find myself around those with a good grasp plus the patience to explain. Today was talking to some seriously science-minded folks about Inception the movie - basically a movie that takes quantum tunneling as applied to dreams (thus some sort of subjective consciousness/soul/I) but the discussion was that there are inconsistencies in the plot as the the way gravity affected things going into each deeper dream level. The physics was off.

My interest is very limited to the metaphysical aspects, and the philosophical aspects. I have been lucky to get good suggestions on what texts to read and also to have friends that explain things well. Minkowski space is my current reading.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

There were long discussions about it on other threads a few years ago, CS. I'm not going to go into it again. It was exciting and fun to discuss it at the time, but it's not all fresh for me now and I have no desire to take it on again. That was really hard stuff for me.

The ex of which I speak is not typical - he was very highly educated with an Oxford degree and perfectly capable of understanding Gödel's Theorems in full. All true. He's in the grad records.

FYI, in short, because mathematics has errors at the most fundamental, basic level, and because our other sciences are based on mathematics, mathematics itself has shortcomings and is therefore incapable of detecting errors in things bigger than itself that would contradict mathematics itself. So mathematics itself is incapable of producing a single axiomatic science. And mathematics is the best physical science we have.

You may disagree, but you'd have to really dig in and see the earlier threads and honestly, CS, I don't want to discuss it again. It blew my mind at the time, though. I love Godel.

Yes, All human disciplines suffer from that, are axiomatic in nature. It is funny how some take Science as a god perfect and infallible.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: There is no time.

Whoa. Einstein and Goedel are way out of my league. Goedel knocked it out of the park with his Incompleteness Theorem, but Maria, keep in mind that it is this very theorem that "proves" (in a mathematical sense) that there are higher, more senior physical "laws" by the fact that our highest systems of understanding - like math - contain within them flaws at the most basic levels which would only become more pronounced at higher levels. In other words, mathematics cannot find a higher truth than itself because mathematics itself as a system contains errors.

In other words, only a higher science - a higher truth than one of our current sciences encompasses, would be able to find error in our mathematics and therefore central rules to the universe.

It's a Catch-22 of sorts and Goedel went quite insane trying to figure it out.

Einstein didn't fare much better.

I don't spend my time wondering when the best minds the world has known have not been able to do so without becoming so lost in the abstract that they lost touch. I see what you're saying, but ouch my brain! lol

All good but my point, what I was saying or emphasizing, was not quite where you took it.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I was really interested in time as abstraction and the consequences of that to metaphysical 'trains' of thought.

 

[JustSheila]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

^^ I see.

I like it.

So deja vu and glimpses or dreams of the future wouldn't have anything to do with abilities, past lives or any of that, as the concept is that the perceptions are real and really happened/will happen/are happening, but these are one and the same and all existing anyway because time is abstract. Something like that?

I play with that idea sometimes, but I've never taken it further than that. Too confusing.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: There is no time.

Maria would probably answer this better than I could, but my understanding of Godel isn't so much that mathematics will always contain errors, but that some things in mathematics will always remain mysteries; i.e. no matter which axioms you start from, there will always be propositions within the mathematical system defined by those axioms whose truth will be undecidable.

If you're interested in Godel, btw, there's a bit about him in Rudy Rucker's "Infinity and the Mind" (Rucker knew Godel, at least slightly).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Infinity-Mind-Philosophy-Infinite-Princeton/dp/0691121273

I would agree more with you on this than I do with Sheila. You gave an elegant explanation and kept the claims / conclusions from being overbroad. Always hard to do and of course physicists also have disagreements....

 

[JustSheila]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I'm not getting into it again. I doubt that I even could again - I was much more mentally sharp that year than now. There were threads with some really educated math people contributing at the time and it was exciting and their input was tremendous.

Neither of you seem to know what I am talking about so leave it at that.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

^^ I see.

I like it.

So deja vu and glimpses or dreams of the future wouldn't have anything to do with abilities, past lives or any of that, as the concept is that the perceptions are real and really happened/will happen/are happening, but these are one and the same and all existing anyway because time is abstract. Something like that?

I play with that idea sometimes, but I've never taken it further than that. Too confusing.

Sort of yes. Well for Einstein time is not independent, it's one symptom or effect of space deformed by gravity. The train experiment is a good and simple explanation of that. Where what we think is past is future in another location, such that the being, the soul, being out of time-space can't have past lives (if one believes one has or is a soul which I do). These are illusions from the quantum perspective. Not sure if I fully answered?

 

[JustSheila]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

From some earlier threads:

Dear --------, The problem with axioms and particularly with scientology is Goedel's Incompleteness theorem. Now Goedel's theorem has interesting history. At the turn of the century (20th) Hilbert one of the premier mathmaticians ( at least I think it was Hilbert) put out a task to the math dudes of the day that it was time to wrap up mathematics by putting it on a sound axiomatic footing such that it could be shown that mathematics particaulalry number theory was true and complete and that being so, the truths of mathematics could under pin science and establish science's basic truths thus proving that science was true as well. In other words mathematics could actually be a pure truth and the truest knowledge we have. In keeping with this Alfred Whitehead and Bertrand Russell pretty much wrote a multi volume text showing this ....at least until Goedel came along and in a small paper threw blew everything apart. This stuff is really complex and i dont even dare state the theorem in its original becasue frankly it sounds greek (it is greek has a lot omegas and stuff) But it says that given an axiomatic system of sufficent power (enough to handle basic arithmetic, yes, even that simple an axiomatic system) there exists statements that are unproveable. that is to say truths that are unable to be proved true within the system (It is supposed to be be complete. there ought to be no statements it can not generate or show to be true or false) and falsehoods that are unable to be proved false by the same simple system. How this is done is quite beyond this little message but you can google it and perhaps read a book called Goedel Escher and Bach by Hoffstadder which is a weird trip. this is some strange shit. (Goedel went sort of mad was a bud of einstein at the Institute of advanced studies at Princeton. he almost did not become a citizen of the US because he found errors in the US constitution and wanted to discuss them with the immigration people. Albert saved his ass.) It basically uses paradoxes which the sytem can not handle to show that any axiomatic system can generate statements that could be either true or false deep sixing the idea that math was the true underpinning of truth. Confused? you bet but no worries. In its original format it is rather powerful. Taking it to the SCN axioms is a stretch i grant but it is a thought.

After all that I sort of concluded that there are a truths that scientolgy can not encompass and falsehoods that it can not detect. It is the nature of this universe and axiomatic systems themselves. Further the bridge would have to be incomplete and possible impossible in the current universe ever to be complete. This is taking Goedel alot farther than it was intended but if the scn axioms are stronger and more complete than arithmetic it must be so.

think on that or .....better not...take a walk instead.

"I highly doubt that the scn axioms are stronger than arithmetic. But the general idea of saying "does godel's theorems apply to real life outside the world of math?" I like. And in the case of scientology, I believe it asserts its own perfection and can be easily proved not perfect, so a godel's theorem for scientology would certainly be true

The theorems themselves are fascinating, at least to me. My attempt at explaining them. Feel free to skip.:

1) If you have a basis, foundation, or language for math, I guess, a collection of statements, then there are ways of logically combining them together that our system can't handle. In other words, our language or foundation can form sentences that it can't understand. You have a base, building blocks, to put together math sentences with. But using just those building blocks you can't tell whether some of the sentences they make are true or false.

2) One of the sentences that you can make that you can't tell if it's true or false is: "the system is self-consistent".

If we say "let's assume this, that, and the other". If we say "everything that follows from putting these assumptions together is true", then godel's 2nd incompleteness theorem says that that can only happen if this and that or this and the other actually contradict each other."

JustaGuy

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Train experiment discussed here
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Everything concerning time is really an effect of one's coordinates in space, plus movement in relation to gravity at the coordinates thus time as an interpretation of an event and whether it happened yesterday or a minute ago. Of course the effects of this is trivial if I am comparing myself sitting on a couch in my living room to someone in a different time-space driving by in a car. Hence previous example of slowed aging by half a second a year in high desert vs. east coast.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I am arguing time does not exist. Some physicists agree, some agree in varying degrees.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I wonder if minkowski's 'worldline' is of use vis a vis the 'time track'. Probably only superficially. I don't yet understand how to relate worldline to time-space except perhaps as a sort of tracking of events / input along specific coordinates. This could be wrong...still reading. This minkowski stuff is off-topic to my post on there not being any time.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line

 

[lkwdblds]

Big Event Today Honoring John Raffenelo

I went with Purple Haze today to a Memorial Service for the recently deceased ex Scientologist, Johnny Rafanello. The event was was given in a Church of Religious Science, which until recently had been a theater for live performing arts in the San Fernando Valley.

There was a good turnout of 50 to 60 people. I ran into several old friends whom I once knew and a person whom I had heard of but never really got to know.

The people from the Church of Religious Science staged the Memorial Service. Their reverend said prayers and another one of their leaders gave a fantastic talk about Johnny's last two weeks. He also showed some videos of Johnny about 2 weeks before the end and 2 days before the end.

First the people whom I knew. They were headed up by Blue Spirit, a former big time ESMB member and devotee of this thread. Blue Spirit took my contact info and said he would call me. He sat across from me when we went for dinner after the service.


Next on the list of notables from the old days was R.G (Richard) Stewart. He was giving courses to Scientologists in the early 80's, teaching them how to flip real estate and make big profits, allegedly so that they could do their bridges. I attended one of his seminars at the time. In 1983, CoS decided to get rid of R.G. Steward, claiming that he was pulling people away from studying Scientology and getting them to go to his lectures instead. They declared him a suppressive person and kicked him out of the church.

The last old friend who I bumped into was Buck H. He sat down across from me after dinner was finished and people were just hanging around talking.. He didn't recognize me but I sure recognized him. We met at Jet Propulsion Labs in Azusa in 1971. We were the only two Scientologists at Jet Propulsion Labs at that time. He was working for JPL, the company founded by Hubbard's old buddy, Jack Parsons who was doing witchcraft and Magik at a large mansion in Pasadena, CA in 1945 through 1947.

Buck told me that some new tapes and books have come to light having to due with 3 aliens who crashed in an Airplane in Roswell, New Mexico. Buck has promised to send me emails supposedly authored by one of the aliens who survived the crash and was taught English by the Roswell authorities. He says the information in the 150 page book will blow my mind and may answer many of the questions which I have about life on Earth.

I really enjoyed attending the tribute to Johnny, the Magic Thetan, he has a large circle of friends who really adore him. I am also looking forward to receiving the communication which Buck has promised to send me. I will keep this thread posted as to the contents of Buck's mailings.
Lakey

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: Big Event Today Honoring John Raffenelo

I went with Purple Haze today to a Memorial Service for the recently deceased ex Scientologist, Johnny Rafanello. The event was was given in a Church of Religious Science, which until recently had been a theater for live performing arts in the San Fernando Valley.

There was a good turnout of 50 to 60 people. I ran into several old friends whom I once knew and a person whom I had heard of but never really got to know.

The people from the Church of Religious Science staged the Memorial Service. Their reverend said prayers and another one of their leaders gave a fantastic talk about Johnny's last two weeks. He also showed some videos of Johnny about 2 weeks before the end and 2 days before the end.

First the people whom I knew. They were headed up by Blue Spirit, a former big time ESMB member and devotee of this thread. Blue Spirit took my contact info and said he would call me. He sat across from me when we went for dinner after the service.

Next on the list of notables from the old days was R.G (Richard) Stewart. He was giving courses to Scientologists in the early 80's, teaching them how to flip real estate and make big profits, allegedly so that they could do their bridges. I attended one of his seminars at the time. In 1983, CoS decided to get rid of R.G. Steward, claiming that he was pulling people away from studying Scientology and getting them to go to his lectures instead. They declared him a suppressive person and kicked him out of the church.

The last old friend who I bumped into was Buck H. He sat down across from me after dinner was finished and people were just hanging around talking.. He didn't recognize me but I sure recognized him. We met at Jet Propulsion Labs in Azusa in 1971. We were the only two Scientologists at Jet Propulsion Labs at that time. He was working for JPL, the company founded by Hubbard's old buddy, Jack Partsons who was doing witchcraft and Magik at a large mansion in Pasadena, CA in 1945 through 1947.

Buck told me that some new tapes and books have come to light having to due with 3 aliens who crashed in an Airplane in Roswell, New Mexico. Buck has promised to send me emails supposedly authored by one of the aliens who survived the crash and was taught English by the Roswell authorities. He says the information in the 150 page book will blow my mind and may answer many of the questions which I have about life on Earth.

I really enjoyed attending the tribute to Johnny, the Magic Thetan, he has a large circle of friends who really adore him. I am also looking forward to receiving the communication which Buck has promised to send me.
Lakey

Gee Lakey, I am sooooooo sorry to hear about Johnny Raff. I was thinking about him this week and wondering if he made more progress on his dream project. He was a courageous magic thetan. I looked forward to his humorous talks recorded at the events....mostly those anecdotes about his childhood growing up.

http://wonderworldonline.com/chronicles I can imagine how his friends the Freemans must be handling it. He so very much adored Mary.

I like this little known interview. There are 3 parts. I will post part 2 here and if you open it in YT the other two short 15 minute clips are line up next to it.
Oh____ never mind. They are at link: http://wonderworldonline.com/wonder-tips

https://youtu.be/3s2mORSYzVM

http://www.obrien-funeralhome.com/obituaries/John-Rafanello/

 

[JustSheila]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thanks for posting the vid, Hats. Raffy was one of my favourite people, ever.

All of his magic came from his big, huge heart. He was easy to love.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I wonder if minkowski's 'worldline' is of use vis a vis the 'time track'. Probably only superficially. I don't yet understand how to relate worldline to time-space except perhaps as a sort of tracking of events / input along specific coordinates. This could be wrong...still reading. This minkowski stuff is off-topic to my post on there not being any time.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line

My personal opinion is that Minkowski's 'worldline', an attempt to express a location in 4 dimensions rather that 3, with time serving as the 4th dimension, would be of no value if it was used vis a vis the 'time track'. The only difference which I can see is that in one system an event is described by the 3 coordinates of space plus a time reading from a clock so as to totally pin down where and when the incident occurred. In the second system an event is described in 'spacetime' which pinpoints the 3 space coordinates and the time as a 4th separate dimension of space. Not much change, one still has to consult a clock to come up with the time dimension.

In Newtonian physics there are three space dimensions and one time coordinate. In Minkowski's worldline, time as an entity separate from space does not exist, instead, we have spacetime, a system which has 4 dimensions, 3 of which deal with the space coordinates and one which deals with a time coordinate.

Here is my own 2 cents on asserting that there is not any time. You can set things up so as to work without mentioning a commodity called time if you are willing to include extra data detailing where various pieces of matter or energy are located. For example, you could say that lunch began at space coordinates X, Y and Z when the Sun was 30 degrees above the Eastern horizon and lunch ended at the same coordinates X,Y and Z when the Sun had advanced to 45 degrees above the Eastern horizon.

In this example, no time need be mentioned. All you need are space coordinates for an object, allegedly at rest, and then a description of movement of some other related object which has separate coordinates of its own in in your space. It doesn't matter much what those second coordinated are but you have to know how much they moved in relation to the first fixed object's coordinates.

That basically is the same exact idea as looking at your wrist watch and seeing that a hand on it moved 45 minutes worth of time. The concept of time passage can be eliminated if you put in its place the relative movement between two objects within your space.

I don't see how time passage can totally be eliminated with any other types of changes. Time passage is tied directly to change of position of objects in space. If there is a space with objects and nothing ever moves with respect to something else, for all practical purposes, there is no time passage occurring in that space. If you want things to have the ability to move in your space, you either introduce the concept of time or you introduce the idea of separate objects moving with respect to each other. It is that simple. I don't see any other possibilities ever being discovered. That's just my opinion but I can't conceive of ever thinking outside that box in this universe.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: Big Event Today Honoring John Raffenelo

Gee Lakey, I am sooooooo sorry to hear about Johnny Raff. I was thinking about him this week and wondering if he made more progress on his dream project. He was a courageous magic thetan. I looked forward to his humorous talks recorded at the events....mostly those anecdotes about his childhood growing up.

http://wonderworldonline.com/chronicles I can imsgine how his friends the Freemans must be handling it.

I like this little known interview. There are 3 parts. I will post part 2 here and if you open it in YT the other two short 15 minute clips are line up next to it.
Oh____ never mind. They are at link: http://wonderworldonline.com/wonder-tips

https://youtu.be/3s2mORSYzVM

http://www.obrien-funeralhome.com/obituaries/John-Rafanello/

Hats, don't worry about Johnny, he HAS (not had) many loyal friends who just simply love him. His daughter and about 5 of his friends spoke today and nearly all of them welled up with tears. On Facebook a group of them are gave formed a site for him, you can ask Johnny to Friend you and one of his closest friends will friend you for Johnny. They are still going to attempt to keep the wonderworld project going, again through Facebook for now.

By being at his memorial servuce today, like my trip to Soka University yesterday, where I felt that the Solka campus with the annual Festival going on was similar to how I envision heaven would be, I got the same feeling the very next day by meeting with Johnny's friends and listening to many of them tell how big an impact Johnny played in their lives and how much they love him.

Check it out Hats! I know you are an a midwesterner part of the time and a southerner the rest of the time but with the internet and cell phones, you can still participate in Johnny's activities. BTW, Johnny was born in August of 1941 and died at age 73 1/2. This is not bad for a guy who detested health food and exercise.
Lakey