From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2008-04-18T17:04:37+09:00
Subject: Re: Ada vs Ruby

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Phillip Gawlowski
<cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  Robert Dober wrote:
>
>  | That pretty much is why I find Gödel's theorem all save paradoxical.
>  | It showed me, fortunately I was young enough to fully except it as a
>  | truth, that formalism cannot do anything (as does the halting
>  | problem). Without these knowings I might as well still think the
>  | contrary, which would indeed reduce my own awareness of the greater
>  | picture.
>
>  We humans are neither consistent, nor logical, though. We are still
>  guided by imperatives that we have little control over, for example
>  (fear, lust, greed, envy, gluttony..). We can control them, but only if
>  we a) are aware of them, and b) have the intellect (Freud's super-ego)
>  to keep them in check. ;)
>
>  Not to mention that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem applies to abstract
>  concepts more than human nature. Machines and abstract systems are in
>  conflict with human nature, necessitating process for interaction (from
>  social rules, ethics [distinct from morals, which are more on a
>  meta-level], software development methodologies, what have you) in a
>  meaningful and consistent terms.
>
>  The game of Chinese whispers (Stille Post in Germany) demonstrates this
>  quite efficiently, as well as the Mythical Man-Month: Adding people to a
>  late project makes it later, since communication increases to the square
>  of the team size).
>
>  Alas, process has the problem of creating friction and stifles
>  creativity, if taken to the extreme. The balance has to be found between
>  human nature and process, and this is a constant struggle.
>
>  Too much process stifles creativity and the wellbeing of those
>  participating in the process, and no process endangers the success of
>  the task at hand (whatever that task may be).
I completely agree with you on this, but the interesting thing is that
Gödel's theorem is just such a realistic one in a real world far away
from the abstractions of an ideal world, because it showed that even
the abstract, logical world was not ideal as soon
as something got complex enough to be "interesting". That is why his
theorem was that much contested I suppose.
When you say paradox, do you as a matter of fact contest the theorem?
Maybe this is simply my wrong interpretation of the term?
>
>
>  | Now not to become too serious, I deduce from Gödel's theorem that if a
>  | human being would fully understand the nature of the human brain at
>  | least one of the following things would happen
>  | (1) 42 becomes nil
>  | (2) Life, the universe and evertyhing would vanish immediately.
>  | (42) All of Doug Adam's works will be put on the index.
>  | (SSSSSSSSSS0) I will try to find the error in Gödel's proof.
>
>  Which are probable events, just not likely. :P
Well I am glad you like my humor ;)
Cheers
Robert


-- 
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/

---
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein