I’ve taken this to a level I did not think possible. Still, I do not know if there is an end any time soon. I confirm my conclusions with Euclidean geometry and mathematics.
I curse all the crackpots that plague the lives of the scientists without having any mathematical calculations, no foundation in existing research, no flesh on the bones at all.
@Isaac Newton, @Albert Einstein, @Kurt Gödel, @Platon, @Edmund L. Gettier, @Roger M. Klang
Of the above thinkers, I like Isaac Newton best. Then Edmund L. Gettier. Why? Isaac Newton did not take stuff further than just explaining what he could know, except when he was speculating. F=GMm/r² was the equation that described the law of gravity. Albert Einstein, Kurt Gödel and Plato described more of the world than they could know. Kurt Gödel described the world contrary to what can be known, but he did it so skilfully that no one has even dared to try to revise his incompleteness theorem. One of Plato’s theses must be completely revised, but Edmund L. Gettier’s problematization of that thesis is spot on. But when Plato’s thesis now is revised, there is probably no longer any room for Edmund L. Gettier’s problematization. Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity needs to be revised.
Something that can be conveyed from one person’s mind to another person’s consciousness is information, if the person receiving the information perceives it as the transmitter intended. That the receiver syncs the information that the transmitter has in the head is a confirmation that the information is logic. But for this to be possible, it requires that the receiver is at least as intelligent as the transmitter alt. that the transmitted information is simple enough for the receiver to perceive the information as the transmitter had intended for the receiver to perceive it. A proviso must be included. Emotions can also be conveyed between a transmitter and one or more receivers. But emotions are more likely to have a socially logical function rather than that emotions are purely irrational. E.g. in mating and child caring or in the forming of communities and nations. It’s just that you can’t build houses with emotional expressions. Although you may want to build a house with emotional expressions. From this follows that emotions can be logical from an evolutionary perspective. Everything indicates that emotions and logical thinking are mixed to varying degrees in solving problems, music production, and in grief, revenge, happiness, envy, curiosity, etc.
Teaser for my total rebuttal of Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem.
So we have two statements:
- A means that A is unprovable
- False formulas are unprovable
One can easily replace (1) with either “False A is unprovable” or “True A is unprovable”.
(- +) = (-) (imaginary)
(+ +) = (+) (true)
(- -) = (+) (true)
(+ -) = (-) (imaginary)
The following is an explanation of what I am claiming here:
- We would get (- +) = (-) (imaginary) if A could be false and provable, which it cannot. False propositions cannot be proved true.
- We get the formula (+ +) = (+) (true) if it is true and provable, which certainly wouldn’t conflict with (4).
- We get (- -) = (+) (true) if it is false and unprovable.
- Thus we get the formula (+ -) = (-) (imaginary) for the true and unprovable.