I realize I’m revealing myself as the exact kind of hack/rube you’re railing against, but: which one? There are a lot of academics and institutions with that name.
its smart think in terms in terms of abused theorems. generally be obsessed with what people abuse. add the second law to the list also. take a topos literally, oh wait, its as semantic equivocation is implicitly on the list.
You’re not the kind of hack/rube this post is about because you are demonstrating hallmarks of critical thinking and epistemic humility.
You admit a knowledge gap, you reflect...
See the perfect example bellow.
While Gödel is indeed notorious in this sense, note that Rice does not count as “abused” outside the lesswrong community, rather, it is more like that people here cannot deal with it.
Unwillingness to accept limitative notions and to engage with formal logic when it’s relevant makes this community isolated.
Also, once you reason constructively, it is hard to induce an “abuse” of limitative result because they are already implicit in a “falsehood as proof of absurdity”.
Under LEM. ψ⊢Con(¬φ)≡ψ⊢φ→⊥
Gödel then becomes the “source” of “false” simple as that.
I realize I’m revealing myself as the exact kind of hack/rube you’re railing against, but: which one? There are a lot of academics and institutions with that name.
It’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice’s_theorem . It’s one of the most abused impossibility theorems, up there with Godel etc (oh look who’s right there in OP). And then there’s the ending.
its smart think in terms in terms of abused theorems. generally be obsessed with what people abuse. add the second law to the list also. take a topos literally, oh wait, its as semantic equivocation is implicitly on the list.
You’re not the kind of hack/rube this post is about because you are demonstrating hallmarks of critical thinking and epistemic humility.
You admit a knowledge gap, you reflect...
See the perfect example bellow.
While Gödel is indeed notorious in this sense, note that Rice does not count as “abused” outside the lesswrong community, rather, it is more like that people here cannot deal with it.
Unwillingness to accept limitative notions and to engage with formal logic when it’s relevant makes this community isolated.
Also, once you reason constructively, it is hard to induce an “abuse” of limitative result because they are already implicit in a “falsehood as proof of absurdity”.
Under LEM. ψ⊢Con(¬φ)≡ψ⊢φ→⊥
Gödel then becomes the “source” of “false” simple as that.