ITT: Good Ideas for Literary Tattoos

...

>proof requires an axiom
>therefore invisible man in the sky

Bravo Peterson.

...

Squiggly winking man!

...

So this is the absolute state of mainstream philosophers?

>God
>man

That Tristero muted post horn from "The crying lot of 49". Everyone will see that you're a pseud without having to talk to you.

This isn't what Gödel actually proved is it?

This is the anchor tatoo for women born in the 90's.

No, user. I'm sorry to say it isn't...

This is literally metaphysics/theology 101. Straight out of Aristotle's (I think Prior) Analytics.

At least originally the point was that a science can't prove its own first principles, and so must assume or inherit them from a "higher" or prior science, e.g., geometry assumes and applies, but does not prove, algebraic functions. If you go back far enough you get "first philosophy" which is often regarded as "theology" or (classically) "metaphysics," which is the science which is "first" and so provides the starting point for all later proofs, but can not itself be proven, as there is nothing prior to that first science.

Idk what Peterson's angle is in leading this towards God, but at least for Aristotle it simply leads to "hey there are certain assumptions you need to make but can never prove." That's kind of "faith" but not necessarily in the Christian sense. Seems like the OP pic is just putting a (probably unnecessary) Christian spin on pagan classical philosophical ides.

>ides
ideas***

>There is an alternative.

>Godel's incompleteness theorem
>definite truth
topzozzle
10/10

This is literally true. Why do atheists only respond by laughing at it rather than giving a counter-argument, even if its half-assed?

Why God? Why not many gods? Why not literally any other theology? Why not anything that isn't a theology yet? Why theology and not just a freak mutant born with lifegiving powers who died at the end of 55?

Atheism and Christianity isn't the only two answers, which is why Atheism always wins. Always.

>as Gödel proved
That's not what he proved REEEEEEEEEEEE

Because "Godel's theorem" proves that it is impossible to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for arithmetic. Lol. It's the equivalent of the old 360 degrees and walk away.

No, he proved that there is no sufficiently strong logical system that can be developed into arithmetic that is also both complete and consistent.

There's plenty of complete and consistent sets of axioms for arithmetic, e.g. the Peano Axioms.

I always liked Bolaños pictograms

The problem is that you can change out "God" in that statement with science, luck, other humans or Anubis and it's still a valid statement within Peterson's framework. You need faith in something, but that something can be whatever you need in order to rationalise the physical universe. The statement is no more or less valid for him affixing his own preferred totem of faith.

looks like a penis being forced through a triangular keyhole.

The way I interpreted it is that if you have blind faith in something like that it inherently becomes your god

>Its a binary choice.
God is not inseparable from Christianity, and you don't have to engage in religious ritual to be someone who believes in God. Its easier to conceptualise God, meaning, morality etc through religion though. Peterson loves the Bible so much because of the universally true values it teaches. If you follow the core moral values and teachings of the Bible, you will live a good life.

JP isn't religious. He said "I act as though God exists". I took that as being that either he's not sure if he believes in God, or he can't prove his belief in God to people so he just acts as though he exists. You have to take a leap of faith either way; many just think believing in God (or acting as though he, or some other conceptualisation of a God exists) gives you peace of mind.

and it's commonly called his "incompleteness theorem" because the focus is on the true statements expressible by the system that cannot be proven by the system. that is the thing that is considered most odd. inconsistently is less interesting, because it simply means no theorem is false.

however, stronger systems can keep being developed to cover "more and more" theorems, but they will never all be provable. so we keep moving towards something that we never reach.

I don't really see God in there anywhere and it pretty much marks out a modernist Hegelian picture of progress we're all used to. It's just odd, because even formal systems are subject to this situation

petersen might say that maybe God is the one who can prove all theorems stateable by the theory. but that's just a way of characterizing a God as something capable of the impossible.

also Godel himself was highly religious and did try to prove God many times. not sure how that relates, but maybe it confused petersen and he just guessed what the theorems were about lmao

See what you did OP?

Turned a perfectly good thread into a theological dick waving contest because you couldn't resist posting a cunty pic instead of a pepe

watt no ohms?

Unironically.

>geometry assumes and applies, but does not prove, algebraic functions
But algebra and geometry are the same thing
Goedel's theorems don't say anything about the nature of truth, they just imply that things can be provable, unprovable or undecidable. Maybe you're thinking of Tarski's undefinability theorem?

It's not just atheists, user.

>and it's commonly called his "incompleteness theorem" because the focus is on the true statements expressible by the system that cannot be proven by the system.
Kind of, but you're missing the point. Both his incompleteness theorems deal specifically with arithmetic, not just logical systems in general. There ARE complete and consistent logical systems (e.g. see Gödel's completeness theorem). When talking about incompleteness Gödel was _specifically_ talking about arithmetic.

I'm not disagreeing with you about how Peterson completely misunderstands Gödel (even though I'm normally a fan of him, even if Veeky Forums hates him), I'm just pointing out some stuff about Gödel and logical systems in general that you seem to have misinterpreted.

>But algebra and geometry are the same thing
Absolutely and fundamentally they are not. Connections between them can be made, but it was a rather late development, primarily by Descartes. The stuff you get in modern high school textbooks was mostly developed by him.

For some fundamental differences you can look up the differences between constructible and algebraic numbers.

This, I'm a theist, and I find it a ridiculous statement. HOWEVER, there is something similar to what Peterson is talking about, a sort of generalisation of Gödel's and Tarski's ideas, that talks about the ability to construct unprovable statements in any systems by clever application of its axioms. It basically shows that no set of axioms can ever be complete, but I'm pretty sure even that has some limitations and specific applications, and without looking up the specific papers I can't really comment more on it.

arithmetic is actually arbitrary. it just happens to be powerful enough and relevant enough for him to carry out his proof. it's relevant because for example whatever is used to formalize mathematical physics of course encompass arithmetic. it's not just some random theory that has no use or relevance or interest, but it is arbitrary for the proof.

I'm actually a little unsure about what I just said, so feel free to point out arithmetic is like a singular demarcation point for all formal systems, but I really doubt that would be the case.

it's a theorem about all formal systems and how much you can expect from them.

No, it's very much not arbitrary for his proof. I'm not going to pull up the actual proof because I doubt that would help you, but here's some quick quotes from Wikipedia:
>"The incompleteness theorems apply _only_ to formal systems which are able to prove a sufficient collection of facts about the natural numbers."
My emphasis.

>it's a theorem about all formal systems and how much you can expect from them.
That's precisely what it's not. It's _specifically_ about arithmetic. In attempting to stretch his result outside the realm of arithmetic you're committing, although to a lesser extent, the same mistake Peterson did.

>as Godel proved
as Godel proved
>as Godel proved
as Godel proved
>as Godel proved
as Godel proved
>as Godel proved
holy.......

I wonder what you think Godel showed was incomplete. Addition maybe?

...