Hey, I am no Kastrup specialist but at this article I have tried to put two and two together; I am looking for criticism and if this is applicable to the overall dialogue of idealism.
https://evermeme.wordpress.com/2021/03/ ... c-systems/
I try to argue that any language is in itself incapable of being 100% objective because there will always be truths that are true, but cannot be expressed in it.
Goedel and Materialism (H/T Kastrup)
Goedel and Materialism (H/T Kastrup)
Metalswift Kastlien
Re: Goedel and Materialism (H/T Kastrup)
hey there. welcome.
1. I agree with the general spirit of the conclusion
2.
this part is a logical fallacy:
Let's assume, that the fact of the matter is that "Some Cretans are liars, and some speak the truth."
Let's assume Epimenides is a liar.
Then the statement by Epimenides that "All Cretans are liars", is a lie, and consistent with Epimenides being a liar.
If Epimenides would have said " I always lie" then you'd get the interesting circularity that you're looking for.
3.
4.
1. I agree with the general spirit of the conclusion
2.
this part is a logical fallacy:
Proof:The statement, “All Cretans are liars” must also be false then; if so, Epimenides the Creten speaks the truth
Let's assume, that the fact of the matter is that "Some Cretans are liars, and some speak the truth."
Let's assume Epimenides is a liar.
Then the statement by Epimenides that "All Cretans are liars", is a lie, and consistent with Epimenides being a liar.
If Epimenides would have said " I always lie" then you'd get the interesting circularity that you're looking for.
3.
i hope you mean "either incomplete or inconsistent"From the proof of Goedel Incompleteness Theorem, we know that Mathematics (and by extension, Arithmetic) fails the Goedel test.
Math is either complete or consistent.
Therefore, language is also either complete or consistent.
4.
exactly what is the converse of Goedel Incompleteness?1. This is the converse of Goedel Incompleteness
"I don't understand." /Unknown
Re: Goedel and Materialism (H/T Kastrup)
I actually think you have it reversed - materialist assumptions conclude that no language (representations of reality) can ever accurately describe what is really 'out there', except maybe mathematics. Under materialism, all of our language will remain based around qualia which are simply constructed by the brain. Under idealism, the qualia is really 'out there' in some form or fashion and therefore our language systems can points to some aspects of that reality.metalkast wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:36 am Hey, I am no Kastrup specialist but at this article I have tried to put two and two together; I am looking for criticism and if this is applicable to the overall dialogue of idealism.
https://evermeme.wordpress.com/2021/03/ ... c-systems/
I try to argue that any language is in itself incapable of being 100% objective because there will always be truths that are true, but cannot be expressed in it.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
-
SanteriSatama
- Posts: 1030
- Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:07 pm
Re: Goedel and Materialism (H/T Kastrup)
"Language composed of grammar" excludes the aspect of diachronic and synchronic variation from language. To quote Sapir: "Language flows down in the current of it's own making". Like Hilbert's program, Chomsky's program of generative grammar was a disastrous failure. The abstract modelling felt apart in the first contact with empirical reality of language. Since that, Chomsky's scientific approach to general linguistics has been just fancy words reducing to "brain reduction". To be fair, his philosopher side is not as bad as his ritual of scientism in his own academic field.
Gödel proved that static models of language can't be complete, hence trying to force a static model over dynamic process leads to inconsistency. Which is why this is complete BS.
To get a better grasp, compare how both-and and neither-nor behave in static and dynamic tetralemmas.
STATIC
1) True
2) Not true
3) Both true and not true
4) Neither true nor not true
DYNAMIC
1) Increases
2) Decreases
3) Both increases and decreases
4) Neither increases nor decreases
For a more general shorthand, various qualitative verb-polarities can be replaced with more and less, ie. relational operators < and >. As long as we keep in mind that they really mean verbs, not nouns. Static models can be derived from the 4th lemma of the dynamic, but there is no consistent or coherent way to derive other way around. There is a dependence hierarchy, static depends from dynamic, but the dynamic does not necessitate the static.
Gödel proved that static models of language can't be complete, hence trying to force a static model over dynamic process leads to inconsistency. Which is why this is complete BS.
To get a better grasp, compare how both-and and neither-nor behave in static and dynamic tetralemmas.
STATIC
1) True
2) Not true
3) Both true and not true
4) Neither true nor not true
DYNAMIC
1) Increases
2) Decreases
3) Both increases and decreases
4) Neither increases nor decreases
For a more general shorthand, various qualitative verb-polarities can be replaced with more and less, ie. relational operators < and >. As long as we keep in mind that they really mean verbs, not nouns. Static models can be derived from the 4th lemma of the dynamic, but there is no consistent or coherent way to derive other way around. There is a dependence hierarchy, static depends from dynamic, but the dynamic does not necessitate the static.