Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. The theorem says that a (sufficiently expressive and consistent) system can't prove itself to be consistent. One system can prove another one to be consistent but it will essentially be stronger than the one it is claiming the consistency of. Truth is defined only when a particular interpretation of a theory is given (i.e. comparing it against reality).Originally Posted by Singu
Socionics is an attempt to apply logic (rules) to the +Ni analogic stream that composes the undercurrent of the world. The problem is that a system of rules can't never measure reality 100%, since there are too many unseen factors. But we can't operate the undercurrent directly; we need structures and models that help us interpret reality, and allow us to make predictions. But these have limitations. All the physics theorems that we have and seem to work, do so in an standalone manner and some are incompatible with others (for example; quantum mechanics and general relativity). It's like when we made the switch to digital video from analogic video; analogic video contains much more "info" than digital (even if digital seems more sharper at first glance). Same with digital audio; information is "lost" in the encoding. That is why when you go to theatre to listen to a concert, you feel much more emotion than if you listen to an mp3 of the same act.
Last edited by lavos; 03-23-2018 at 02:39 AM.
That's because you didn't understand the Godel's Incompleteness Theorem properly, or you misunderstood how it works.
This is what the Theorem says:
1. In any sufficiently complex system, a system is either incomplete or inconsistent.
2. Such a system can't prove its own consistency ("Consistent" in this sense means that you can not prove both a statement and its opposite to be true, as it would be contradictory e.g. you can't prove that both unicorns exist and unicorns don't exist).
You're talking about #2. But #2 is just an extension or the consequence of the #1, and it's not the main point.
--
What Godel did was through a very complicated process, he has devised a way to prove any statements to be either true or false. Let's call it the function Provable(x), that can prove any statement to be either true or false. He has also devised a way to convert any statements into numbers, just as computer codes can be converted into 1's and 0's these days (this is called the Godel-numbering), so that we can simply plug in the numbers to the Provable(x) function. But instead of using numbers, we'll just use English letters for now because it's easier for us to understand. But in principle, it's possible to use numbers and thereby making it a mathematical statement.
He has also created the opposite of Provable(x), the NOT Provable(x). Let's call it the function NotProvable(x). Since this is just the opposite of Provable(x), it just reverses the answer. If NotProvable(x) = true, then Provable(x) = false, and vice versa.
This is all very good and all, but what can we do? Godel has done all this just so that he can prove a very important point.
Let's just suppose that NotProvable(x) is false. We want to say that NotProvable(x) was proven to be false by plugging it in to the Provable(x) function. What will happen then?
If NotProvable(x) = false
(To get a better picture, NotProvable(x) is like saying in plain English, "This statement is false". If we say that it's false, then it's true.)NotProvable(x) = false (= Provable(x) = true)
equals
Provable(NotProvable(x)) = true
equals
NotProvable(x) = true
So this results in NotProvable(x) being true, even though we said it was false? This is a logical contradiction and an inconsistency, since we have just proved that something that was supposed to be false, is true. That means we can prove a false statement to be true. This will be the end of math as we know it.
We don't want that to happen, so let's assume that NotProvable(x) is true instead. What will happen?
If NotProvable(x) = true
This is a better option, but it also means that NotProvable(x) can't be proved to be either true or false, since we can no longer use the Provable(x) function. It will forever remain a mystery.NotProvable(x) = true
equals
Provable(x) = false
We are only supposing that NotProvable(x) is true, only because we don't want an inconsistent system. There is no "proof" of this anywhere, in fact we have brought this "NotProvable(x) = false" from outside of the sytem. It is true, but unprovable. Therefore, the system is incomplete. There is a statement that can't be proven within the sytem.
And that is why a system is either incomplete or inconsistent. It also can't prove its own consistency, because if we did prove its own consistency, then as in the "NotProvable(x) = false" example, it will prove to be inconsistent. But we'd want a math system to be consistent, so we are only supposing that it's consistent, but also remaining incomplete forever (we can no longer prove it). Since it's not provable, we'd have to keep adding new axioms from outside of the system forever.
In a theory, there is no such thing as a "truth". Perhaps we can say that either it's "good enough" for something, or it's an approximation of the truth. Strictly speaking, a theory is always "wrong", and there could be another theory that is "less wrong" than the other one. But as the Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says, we can't ever reach the "truth", as we keep have to incorporating new information from outside of the system, ad infinitum. It will always remain "incomplete".
In math and logic, a truth value is defined by its axioms.
That's just stupid on a whole new level.
you're going to realize like in a few decades (optimistically) my statement was correct and feel bad, but don't feel bad, know I'm smiling somewhere
Yeah I get all of that.I took a class where we proved the First Incompleteness Theorem. This also has nothing to do with what you said before - which is that the theorem is about the truth of a system, not its consistency. (I assumed you were referring to the Second theorem because it's at least somewhat related to what you were saying, if you replace "truth" with "consistency".)
Assuming you're still talking about a theory in mathematical logic, this is nonsense. An incomplete theory is just that, incomplete, it's not "wrong". (And it's not wrong in the sense that e.g. Newtonian physics is wrong/approximate.)In a theory, there is no such thing as a "truth".
If a theory is incomplete, then it's going to be wrong, because a new information is going to prove the previous theory wrong. I didn't exactly want to say "wrong", because it may be more like replace the theory with a more accurate one, but in a strict sense, it will be proven wrong. And if it is incomplete, then how can you know that it's "right"? You can't. It will never be known that a theory is right or correct or true. It will always be wrong because there will always be a better theory that will replace it.
It can simply be a matter of accuracy. As we know from the Cantor's diagonal argument (which the Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is closely related to and based on), there is no such thing as the "biggest infinity", and so we can't ever get to the closest number to the "truth". There will always be a number that is bigger than the previous one. An accuracy of something can always be a little bit better than the previous one. This means that our knowledge will be infinite. This also means that there will be an infinite number of theories, and by infinite I mean uncountably infinite, and so therefore there will never be a "complete" theory.
I think this is closely related to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and is in fact the consequence of it, since the Theorem says that you'd have to infinitely keep adding new axioms from outside of the system, and yet it still can't be proven. It can never be made complete. This disturbed many mathematicians and logicians, because they have now realized that they can't ever get to the absolute "truth" or "correctness", or that there will ever be the "ultimate" theorem of everything. But it also meant that they could always find something new to keep working at something to improve it.
So for instance it's absolutely correct to say that "Socionics is wrong", because it is wrong, as all theories are wrong. It's just a matter of finding something else that can better explain something.
defining incomplete as wrong is a pathological mistake across every level
Ah yes, in a few decades. Good decision, as we both would likely have forgotten that we ever had this discussion, and hence avoiding yourself the embarrassment.
And this was supposed to be from the "objective" Te-valuer, who is supposed to value "the Truth" over everything, as if by a scientist. Another reason that Socionics is total and absolute bullshit.
Unfortunately for you, you still do not understand the Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Did you not read what I said after, "because a new information is going to prove the previous theory wrong"? Say that a theory is incomplete. You say, well it's only missing some piece of a "complete" or a "correct" theory. Not so. Even if you add that "missing piece", that piece is also going to be incomplete. And then the missing piece of that piece will also be incomplete. And it will keep go and on and on ad infinitum. It will never be made complete. That's the whole point of the Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
well you've been here for like 9 years whats another 20
you may have me confused for K4m. My point is not that I'm right with recourse to a baseless prediction. I'm saying I'm right for other reasons, but that I'm legit concerned about future you and I don't want you to feel bad when it finally dawns on you. although if you feel a little bad maybe it means you have a conscience so thats good, but in the end, just realize that not all people are trying to force you into submission and really speak from a position of wishing you wellAh yes, in a few decades.
Last edited by Bertrand; 03-26-2018 at 03:00 AM.
I don't think I've been on this forum from around 2010-2017.
Then maybe you can explain why you feel that you are right (i.e. explain what the theorem is about and how it works), right now, and not in a decade, so we can settle this for good. If you think that I won't "get it", then I've already explained how the theorem works and what it's about, and all you have to do is refute it.
Just saying "I'm right, because I just KNOW, but I'm not going to explain myself" isn't going to be convincing a lot of people. Saying that "Well I just KNOW that I'm right, and you'll see in a decade" is simply putting yourself off from having to explain yourself, because why? Perhaps you are afraid that you were wrong and didn't know what you were talking about? That is what a child does. Saying things like "You KNOW what I'm talking about!" - but then when asked "No, I don't. What?" then they can give no answer. It's all very childish.
These kinds of "backhanded compliments", again, won't make you a very trustworthy person. The problem is that you think that people are stupid, and they won't notice these things. You say things like, as if a rather self-serving parent says to a child, or a lover or a spouse, "I'm doing this for YOU!" when it is pretty obvious that that's not what it's about.
You are obviously, not coming from a place of honesty or integrity. I mean if you were honest, then you'd at least admit that you were simply being an ass, and that's fine, but then you turn around and say things that are obviously false, like "I'm doing this for YOU because I care!". Or even worse - "I know what I'm talking about".
--
Anyway, the entirety of Socionics is pretty much circular. It gives a description of observations, but it gives no explanations as to why. It says things like "Fe is complementary with Ti", okay, but why? It can give no explanation as to why that is. At best, it's based on an observation. But then these labels, or "Information Elements", start to have "lives of their own", such as that "Math is complementary with emotions" which obviously makes no sense when taken seriously.
I would just say your entire worldview is predicated on mistrust and essentially hopes for a strong hand that makes everything forcible and undeniable, so your philosophy of determinism is really predicated on an irrational hope rooted in a deep seated need for certainty. certainty sufficient to trap you, but in a "good way"-- its like a prayer for someone to come force happiness on you, or in lieu of that, force unhappiness on everyone else but either way to settle it once and for all. I don't think that's something you're going to reconcile trying to argue rationally with people on the internet, because its an inherently irrational commitment driving it all. I would say that God normally functions to resolve this need in people but you've sort of replaced him in word but not in spirit with recourse to alleged properties of the universe. I think this is a textbook case of what Nietzsche predicted with the death of God. have you considered becoming a communist?
So basically, you can't answer the question, and you're still trying to "buy time" so that you won't be confronted with the realization that you were talking nonsense. I see. Business as usual, then.
I get that you're trying very hard to make "Socionics predictions", but what you don't realize that you're absolutely wrong, lol. Every time you make these kinds of predictions, I'm just internally laughing at how wrong all your assumptions are. And ironically, you're the one who is making these deterministic predictions based on "laws of Socionics".
In a way, you're a lot like niffer, and it just gets very old and tiring, because you're looking at human relationships through the lens of Socionics, and you're not actually interacting with people in a real way, by actually getting to know them and responding accordingly.
It's like now I get how women would feel at those "PUA guys" thinking that they can just use a manual to press the right buttons to get predictable results. It doesn't work that way in real life.
No and no. I don't care about Nietzsche or communism, thanks.
I've always liked how Godel's theorem opened the road to the mystery, everything can work and make sense, but just realize it's not the ultimate truth. Science after all is just a patch work of theories that with time turn outdated and have to be replaced. Life's beautiful )
derails, derails everywhere
Science is about objective knowledge. It's not only theory, model but also practice where theory works as should. Only part of theory is after time thought as wrong. There is a lot which stays thought as correct and useful, and at best appears more general or comfortable theory which replaces it in some regions.
thats the whole point,
u can look at something with a very fine advanced technological lens and think that's all u can see and that's objectivity right there, but you're just being deceived by the lens u use. in 20 years the lens will be bettered, advanced more and more, ultimately it will be replaced, so all that u thought u knew will gain 10 times more depth, 10 times more accuracy, so that everything u previously knew was a lie... somehow.
this shows one thing among many: science is very dependant on the tools it uses, every development in it comes from the tools that were/are used to study the physical world... and this itself shows how un-objective it is, because it doesn't focus solely on the object, but relies on the methods to approach this object.
this is pretty much what happened to mendeleev's table of elements, yet we keep using it because it's just easier to apply than relativity and answers our daily questions just fine, yet it's not perfect and the elements disposed in it don't represent the world for how it works at all... it's just a convention, not objective reality, although it's the best attempt at it that we have
Vast majority of science is here to stay. We are not in middle ages any more. Today we have very good grasp on reality and it's not to be replaced with something else. It will continue on improving but no radical changes like it used to be.
What we can't handle today are very complex problems and there are no known ways to tackle them. Actually, most of the science today is very simple and very often easy to prove. There are no very complex theories which have been proven to work. Science today believes mainly in simplicity and accepts only and believes in simple solutions.
One of the potentially very complex theories is artificial intelligence, and because we lack methods in developing very complex theories the progress in it is stalled.
Socionics is one of such theory, same MBTI, therefore many scientists don't like it. It's really very complex and there's no way to prove anything reliably in simple way. Simpler theories have much greater acceptance in scientific circles. For these reasons MBTI is not actually being developed at all and socionics in western world shares little of popularity. So how we are going to develop AI if we don't care about basics like typology? No wonder the AI research is stalled.
maybe you should read some psychology books falsehope, then you'll realise why models like MBTI raise the laughters of actual psychologists, as they did raise the scorn of Jung, which was the inventor of the theory behind it yet never proposed its application in an actual model. indeed it was 2 common people to develop this, not psychologists, and Aushra was an economist, not a psychologist, although she gained the title of psychologist for developing the socionics model... ahem.
very simply, there's a thing called adaptation, we're not static types but get influenced by the situations around us, it's them that mold our character. it's even why Jung used the functions to refer to pathological cases, because it's pretty extreme to be a type over every other, it's more healthy to be a bit of everything, situations allowing.
your faith in the state of things as they are is quite funny anyway, unfortunately I can't submit to it
Wolfgang Pauli had an interesting take on what seemed to him to be two different approaches to science, one was called Trinitarian, which consists of people who are mainly concerned with what is already known and the other was called Quaternarian which consisted of people who focused on what was unkown. Pauli didn't consider either one was better and said both contributed to science.
I think this theory explains alot of the tension when people of these different approaches (which Pauli thought were temperaments, he may be right) argue over sicence. I think @falsehope is trinitarian, and @ooo is more quaternarian. Hence the dispute...
I've had these types of arguments with trinitarian types myself (quaternarian here), but now I appreciate their outlook more so there is more mutual respect.
hexagonal here
If you can't prove that anything regarded as truth today is not true, your argument is void. It doesn't make any sense to say "it's likely to be untrue" if you simply can't say why. It's not even simple as saying why, but actually presenting something more accurate. If there's nothing more accurate that what it is known today, then what is known today is simply the best truth available today and for most of the time, it will remain true eventually will be improved.
Socionics author did for psychology more than most of other psychologists so deserves to be psychologist. And the lack of basic education in psychology doesn't disqualify person, psychology is full of BS anyway.
Socionics is likely not an accurate description but it's the best what we have, and it's the basis for what is going to be next. And adaptation may be true to some degree, but the core of the type is still the same. I can't be artistic for one, and I think if I would introverted feeling type I think I could be, and no situation can change it. How I behave is easy to change, the more important part is when you need to use your intelligence, like math, art, and when problems are more difficult the type of the person has more profound effect.
You cannot make progress if you don't know properly what is already known and you can't dismiss it if you don't have anything better. Making progress is hard work.
I noticed that people very often brainlessly reject established truths and sometimes think something opposite which is well known to be false. It's like going backwards. It's much easier than being constructive yet it may feed Ne ego of being "novel". But it's empty.
Aushra wasn't only an economist, she did marriage counseling also which was what she based her theory on. She worked in the department of Family Sciences IIRC.
O_o
dont get me wrong, i like socionics too, i just think people are better than it, as life is better than science anyway
hotel, my bad... the question is though, did she become a part of family institutions after inventing socionics ? there's no dates to this online
Like I said, she developed socionics by observing married couples. I don't know what her formal qualifications in psychology were (not that it matters at all).
ok ok
@falsehope
just today a new scientific discovery was presented that will change quite a few things on what we know about the body, a new organ called interstition was found. it's the most extended organ in our bodies and connects and protects all the other organs in our bodies.
this discovery was possible thanks to the advanced tools we have today to scan the human body, but even and especially thanks to the never-ending questions that characterize a good scientific frame of mind.
i don't get what your point is because i didn't claim that what we know is not "true", i simply believe that the objective reality we talk about is a convention, that with time we adjust to what is found, as this today's discovery shows.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-t...er-knew-we-had
Don't get me wrong, I don't say that everything was invented, but the times of major breakthroughs are over. There are some of course but not as much and not much changing as before. In some areas we are still in the middle ages so we should be able to pull some major things, but this is slow process today anyway.
And also most of the "breakthroughs" which are hyped in press never make into our lives nor into anything else. It's most often only hype. Usually costs prevent it from adopting on mass scale.
For example in 50s and 60s there were major discoveries. Everything has changed. But now, during last 20 years nothing much changed. Slighty faster computers, faster internet, better mobiles, but that was already in place. The thing we can watch movies digitally is not big difference from watching them on VHS, so the live improvement is low, only this that now you can download the movie. Same drugs, nearly same physics, AI almost in same place as it used to be. There are more discoveries reported but not many of them, or very very little of them makes into our lives.
There are many factors contributing to this, like relatively shrinking economies, so we cannot afford most of latest inventions and very often they are reserved for very rich people only, like news in the medicine.
lol wut
ok nevermind
weird to see an alpha not jazzed about the impending singularity
The discoveries which were made in the 50s-70s are the ones we use today, computers, the internet, etc, they were invented for military use and have been pioneered by people like Bill Gates for example into something people can use in their daily lives and that people can afford. There is no business interest in keeping inventions only for the rich, you make alot more money by mass producing something so the argument doesn't make sense.
I say give it a few more decades. Hype is normal over little, insigificant stuff, but the hype always seems to miss the important stuff. In a few decades the inventions of now will be affordable to everyone, just like it took decades for computers to become home computers.
Another good example are improvements in computer processing power. So far since 70s we've been able to pack double the amount of the transistors on the chip every year and one month, now this trend slowed down, so now new CPUs are being released after longer time then they used to. And they also might become more expensive in future, and we will be not making more money, making them less affordable, therefore we might be, as commoners, forced to use old technology in the future, so the progress from our perspective will be even slower.
That's very optimistic but I would not be so sure of it. In few decades we might be making money just to sustain our lives and we may not afford even cheaper technology. Not every technology can be massively used and doesn't need to be. Especially medical one. In my hometown, people come to implant some heart devices, one costs $12.000 (without stay and surgery). Here in my country not everyone qualifies for one, and sometimes people need to pay to live. Even if it's mass produced it's far beyond most budgets here and it's not really high technology. In my country that's something like 10 years savings to pay for one on average salary and living costs. Now take for example gene editing therapy, how much it will cost in 30 years. Propably fortune. And national health insurance wont be apt to pay for everyone. I am not so optimistic.
I realize that the economy is not great everywhere in the world, but that points to the fact this is more of an economic issue than one of there being nothing left to discover (which is what the debate was about).
There can be lots of stuff left to discover and to also stuff to pioneer but if the economy is bad then the pioneering wont happen. But wait till things go better politically and economically and then you have that possibility.
You're from Poland right? I realize Eastern Europe isn't currently doing well economically or politically atm and I'm not sure how optimistic I am for your part fo the world, I think China is probably looking for ways to infiltrate your economy(like they did with Hungary), which might not be a such bad thing when you think about it (it can help with development). I don't know though. I hope your part of the world will be ok.
I think the political instability is killing the economy in some places, though I must admit I live in a country where the economy is doing ok and the politically situation is stable in comparison so my pov is different.
I think there are still plenty of things to discover in science, but economic factors can slow scientific progress down for sure.
Even if you are in stable economically country the situation is not meant to get better. More and more automation is taking over the jobs and people earn less and less.
For example, most of the western europe and likely US thinks their economy worsened, so our parents were making more money in the past and they could afford more than us. And similarly our kids will be making less than us. People never believe their work can be automated (when it's not obviously simple).
Like it was with factories, they were hiring plenty of people decades ago (our parents), but then they automated most of the production lines and people stopped making good money and were forced to do less paying jobs. This unfortunately happens with current generation of white-collar workers with the help of big computer companies who use automation on big scale.
If you think your work can't be automated think again.
Good example of being busted by automation on large scale is a new word - to get "Amazonned":
To get Amazonned means you've lost a significant chunk of your business to a dot-com. To be Amazonized is to wake up with a sick feeling that your industry is being dominated by a Web-based retailer.
So the progress with dotcoms doesnt mean better economy. This kind of invention works actually against economy. Automation is not something to be underestimated. Money goes only to few people instead of to many small shops like in the past.
So much crap is being spewed by falsehope.
I guess both falsehope and ooo are kind of right about things.
There has never been any "major breakthroughs" in science (or the so-called "paradigm shift"), science has always been about slow and gradual improvements of the past theories. In science, there is no violent revolution that will start everything from scratch, due to some young rebellious figure fighting against the old fogies and it changes everything, which might make a nice story, but that's not the reality.
Even the things that were hyped up as being "major breakthroughs" like Einstein's Relativity or Quantum physics were just improvements over the past, like the Newtonian physics. And then we find that Relativity and Quantum physics are actually incompatible with each other, and therefore it is likely that they're both actually wrong. And so we are in need of finding a new theory that can better explain the reality that we're living in. And even then, that theory will eventually one day be proven wrong, and something better will be found. This will go on for infinity. So saying that "Everything has already been found, and there is no nothing more to find" is nonsense.
There is no "absolute truth" or "incontrovertible theory" that will forever stay the same in science. There is nothing infallible in science, there is nothing that will stay the same forever, everything will eventually be slowly and gradually be overturned. These ideas of infallibility, even over some things, will only create an authoritative attitude of "Trust me, I'm right", which can get really ugly. It will also make things not accept any criticisms, which are required to improve over anything. In science, criticisms are paramount. Criticisms are what will improve theories and check for any errors, and successfully eliminate them.
Information is infinite, and knowledge is information. We can't predict knowledge, as knowledge is infinite. We can't say that "Everything has already been found, and no more", because there is an infinite sea of knowledge waiting out there in the ocean of knowledge. And we can only ever be wrong (fundamentally), and never right about things, because nothing is infallible.
Automation creates as many jobs, if not more, than it destroys. This is how it has been with every major technological shift, jobs are destroyed and safer, higher paying jobs are created.
The question many scientists are asking with this technological shift is whether AI will replace jobs performed by humans, not just machines or technology but AI. I don't have the answer but there is no reason to think that there won't be other kinds of jobs created that we can't even imagine. For example, today we have people payed to play games like mmorpgs professionally where fifty years ago that would have been unthinkable.
The real issue becomes education, because jobs are requiring higher and higher qualifications. People have to go through more time in college before they can work, not to mention this means kids staying with their parents longer and governments having to raise the age of retirement to make cuts. Also not everyone has the intellectual capacity to perform some high paying tech related job. If jobs require more and more smarts, what about people who would don't have the IQ for performing such jobs? There is already a strong correlation between IQ and financial status, I think it will only get worse. When certain people have access to better health services, better nutrition etc we can expect the average IQ to go up, but I don't know if it will go up fast enough to keep up with the changes in the market.
The main economic drive of automation is that it is supposed to reduce costs, and if this would create the same amount of higher paying or same paying jobs than it would be irrelevant. The biggest savings in money are in workforce, and in some cases it's drastic. These companies have huge profits yet hire very little people, so their profits per hired person are even more ridiculous than their earnings. Such huge earnings come from mass usage of automation.
The most civilised countries are going to be hit most, as high paying jobs are more likely to be automated. In 10 years I think 1/3 of current jobs will be automated in western world, and these will be high paying and low paying jobs. Inequality will be even higher. And medical costs will be also higher because western societies are getting older.
Unless we're talking about two different employers. But even if we're not, I'm talking about the fact that jobs which can be replaced with automation are freeing up resources to create jobs that cannot. This is how it has always been with automation. The automation still reduces costs because if the company had to pay a workforce that can be automated but is not, and a workforce which is not automated because it cannot (yet) be performed by a non-human it would still pay more.
The real question is whether AI is different from other forms of automation, if "this time is different" or if history will repeat itself. I don't know what will happen but while I do think it's good to be prepared for the worse, it's also not certain if this is what will happen.
Low paying jobs are more likely to be automated, simply because there is more of them and thus they cost more. High paying jobs cost less because there is less of them. "High paying" and "low paying" are relative terms btw.The most civilised countries are going to be hit most, as high paying jobs are more likely to be automated. In 10 years I think 1/3 of current jobs will be automated in western world, and these will be high paying and low paying jobs. Inequality will be even higher. And medical costs will be also higher because western societies are getting older.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote