Take lsd

Godel's incompleteness theorems would like to have a word with you.
You can't prove shit pleb.

If you can't prove shit how did Godel prove you can't prove shit?

There are only 2 truths in the universe, 1 that of nihilism and 2 nothing can be proven.
Again I don't need to prove that cause it's self evident and godel thought so too.

This is cute, but nothing is more depressing than the present. Look around you and if you can see anything that is not vain, you are at least adept at deluding yourself.

Past and future exist in the mind IN the present. There is only the present.

But being able to reflect and plan is what makes us human. You old fucking hack.

>take mushrooms
>suddenly I understand pre-Hegelian Western philosophy

>it's self evident
How can something that doesn't exist have properties? How is something being self-evident not proof of the possibility of proof? Are you just b8ing me?

Proof doesn't exist.

Confuscious said sometimes similar

Yesterday was history, Tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift, which is why we call it the present.

:)

Kidding right?? You're being cheeky. Nobody can live in such willful ignorance as to peddle such an extraordinarily juvenile misinterpretation of what Godel actually proved, right?

But what if you are anxious and depressed.

I respect your optimism on understanding Daoism (Taoism), and I have some input.

The Tao Te Ching effectively says that anyone who claims to understand the The Way doesn't actually understand it. To treat Taoism as solely fluidity is to oversimplify it. I'm not a scholar on this but having read the text a few times, it's clear to me that the Tao ISN'T clear at all.

>take shrooms
>accept that postmodern philosophy has killed objective morality

>take shrooms
>end up watching my sprinkler go on and off for 3 hours

Gödel's theorems are complex and deal most directly with mathematical profs rather than pure logical proofs. I'm still trying to understand them, but I think I can answer your question on this.

In Gödel's critique, he claims that any formal set of logic will inevitably have statements which it MUST make to be complete yet aren't provable nor disprovable within that system of logic. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but this is essentially noting that the axiomatic assumptions of all formal systems are fabricated at some level. There is no 'rock' to build logic upon.

I was once in your place OP. Easterm philosophy will not answer the questions you are chasing.
Eastern philosophy is good for making neurotic people calm down. But you can't calm the feeling that sits at the center of your being. It is lit until death.

That's because you are conditioned in the western thinking mode

You're right and I assumed OP is as well. I quite like having a soul, too.

I'm projecting my own experience hard af. Don't mean to dismiss eastern philoshophy completely

>take lsd
>watch episode 911 of the JRE podcast live
>suddenly i understand that there's a cabal of paedophile vampires stifling humanities progress so that we basically die as a species to avoid competition at the next level, as the bible says, of the inter-dimensional plane

>Aristotelian anything
shoo shoo brainlet

>take shrooms
>???
>right in the pooper

DUDE

'pure logical proofs' are essentially mathematical proofs.

This is really what psychedelics are like

anything else is people exaggerating

Who can I concile this with thing to do?

>normies career MILFS think they can "live in the moment" while having a job and acknowledging other responsibilities

makes me sick desu

>""" you""""

>t. Brainlet or ripped off.

Isn't the point of Godel that mathematics could not be a logical system?

No, it just can't be comprehensive. If it is closed, there will always be at least one statement within that system that is not solvable by the rules of that system.

>statements which it MUST make to be complete yet aren't provable nor disprovable within that system of logic.
A system can never be complete, this is slightly different. this means there are allways theorems that aren't provable and not disprovable; this doesn't mean you can't prove anything though

to get insight , consider the proof. The actual proof is a lot more complex, where you assign numbers to theorems to get a new theorem. but basically the proof is as follows:
In ANY system you can make the following statement:
this statement is not provable in this set of axioms
If it is true, then the axioms are incomplete
if it is not true and thus provable then the model is obviously inconsistent.
thus a system can't be both complete and consistent

Now you could keep doing this and adding axioms so you'll never get a complete set of axioms, such that you can never prove everything, BUT you can still prove stuff in a set of axioms.

the other one is that you can't show a system with arithmethic to be consistent within this system

What you're saying, that the axiomatic assumptions are fabricated is different. That has been known for a longer time. Consider for example the development of non euclidean geometry (this was before godel). By not using an axiom, the parallel postulate, there was a whole new way of thinking that yields results in the real world too. Axioms surely are kind of weird in a way though. In mathemathics we pick them so the results hold that you would want to hold. There are more natural ones than others. When arguing normally we assume things all the time. For example most peoplle would say human suffering is bad(>inb4 spooked), so you can use that as an axiom when . This is not formal or anything in any way but still is useful. despite it being arbitrary, it's still useful in my opinion, and we should make a leap towards the system just because it's the only way we can get anywhere. The last bit is just my opinion though.

Anyway for a long time mathematicians thought the incompleteness theorem were only restricted to weird self referential theorems and nothing they deemed of importance. But there are some more interesting theorems that are non provable too. The continuum hypothesis is one of the more famous ones. It says there is no infinity between countable infinity (Natural numbers) and that of the continuum (real numbers). This one is seemingly consistent when it's true as well as when in it's not true. So you can assume it and not get contradictions as well as do the opposite. You can sometimes prove that statements can't be proved, this is how you figure out if they are to be added to a set of axioms.

last time i dropped acid it led to marxism

NICE