posted
The Incompleteness theorem concerns mathematical systems as a whole, and their "incompleteness." It doesn't invalidate individual proofs, theorems, or groups of these (to the best of my knowledge.)
I only have a partial understanding of it, but basically incompleteness means that a system can have theorems or conjectures unprovable within the system, yet the conjectures can still be true or false.
Goedel proved that any mathematical system at least as complex as arithmetic must be incomplete. So arithmetic has unprovable conjectures, as well as any system more complicated. But arithmetic and more complex mathematical structures are full of plenty that can be proven.
Whereas the soft sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropolgy, etc even economics to some extent) have very few hard facts and provable causal relationships, at least at this stage. The soft sciences could really take off in the 21st century, which might be a good or bad thing depending on who utilizes them and benefits from them.
posted
Morbo: more importantly, incompleteness means that that no axiomatic system can be proved consistent. This means that with math is not pure or a priori. Like science, math is only a tool to describe and model what we experience. Math and science are not fundamentally different from the social sciences, they just deal with subjects more predictable than people. Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly, Fugu, I am not married, and don't expect to be any time soon.
Is it a right to get married? I suppose perhaps it is. But is it a right to get married to whoever you want? Obviously not--or I'd be married to one or more of several high-school crushes, Alanis Morrissette, Angelina Jolie, and her magnificent Ralphiness. There are a large number of limits on who a person can get married to, most of which we accept without the slightest difficulty even when they make us unhappy. If the person I love and want to spend the rest of my life with is already married, or a close relative, or can't get a license without being caught and deported, or (insert multiple other reasons), or just plain doesn't love me back...I'm plumb out of luck.
I admit at this point that I don't know what it's like to really love someone and not be able to marry them. As far as I know, I have never been in love with anyone; I don't form attachments easily. So perhaps my perspective is skewed.
Chaeron, I may have given you the wrong impression. I was in something of a hurry last night. The situation I was trying to describe was not so much one in which the state has no control over religion as one in which all religions are equally free to compete for influence, within the government as well as outside of it. Only if one religion were to gain an overwhelming majority of very like-minded supporters would it have much control over public policy--and then who would be left to object anyway?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BrianM, I know this is irrelevant, but I'm frankly more curious about this than I am about everyone's positions on homosexuality at this moment. Are you sure you don't mean Disneyland? Because a city street runs right in front of that park [the Magic Kingdom]. Disney World is not one single park, it is a huge area, and there is no public street that really provides frontage to any park (unless you count Downtown Disney as a park). If rude protesters gathered outside the Magic Kingdom, they could easily be ordered away, since that area is private property. Did you witness this yourself on a trip to Florida, or see it on the news?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, I know there have been protestors at DisneyWorld in the past during Gay Days. I believe they stationed themselves by the side of one of the main entrance roads. I don't remember exactly what denomination they were, though.
I have never understood how someone can take a stance against homosexuality in the name of Christianity by spewing hatred.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, should have said, if two people feel that mutually about each other.
FIrstly, we can dismiss the restriction you have based on deportation. Willful violation of the law is a generally accepted reason for restricting rights, so its not much of an argument to say that when someone willfully violates the law they lose the right to be married, therefore homosexuals can't. Besides, I'm pretty certain people who would normally be deported CAN get married in the US.
Moving on to relevant objections after my restatement, I actually don't care if someone is closely related. As far as I'm concerned, restrictions against close genetic matchings are silly, particularly as the people can already have sex as much as they want, and even have children, within the law. If it squicks religious people we could likewise call it a civil union -- heck, in some places closely related people living together (though its generally glossed as being NOT carnal) already get benefits quite similar to marriage.
People who are already married? That's not a valid counterargument either. The two people already married have a pre-existing contract between each other and with society. That they can't violate that arbitrarily has nothing to do with a person's ability to marry in general, only with their ability to marry after they have entered into a willful obligation.
(note: the other person doesn't want to examples were all dealt with through the redefinition).
posted
For you folks who have been scrambling for concrete evidence that homosexuality would ruin society, I heard "commentary" on NPR this morning discussing how, in Scandanavia--where gay marriage has been around for about a decade, I think they said--the statistics for children born out of wedlock have gone way up and the statistics for marriage in general, according to the commentator, had gone way down.
I don't know how accurate it was or where the guy got his research (or how he interpreted it--he certainly didn't give any compelling reasons why these number changes are due expressly to the existence of GM), but you may want to start looking in Scandanavia for evidence against gay marriage.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu> The deportation thing wasn't a matter of prohibition but of practicality--you may be able to get married, but not without facing consequences many people might decide they'd be better off without. Never mind.
I can't think of any more reasons one might not be able to get married, though that may be due to my having been up way too long. I don't know that it matters. Given so many reasons why people couldn't (either legally or practically) get married, I don't think it's justified to claim marriage as a right that needs some overwhelming reason to be disallowed. It's a privilege, and not one that's very easy to obtain. But I suppose this is a matter of opinion.
When I've gotten some sleep I will try to present some more arguments on different grounds. Right now, I'm lucky if I haven't misspelled anything.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a privilege that's very easy to obtain if two people are heterosexual. It's a trip to Las Vegas (or any of the other one stop marriage shop locations).
That's incredibly easy. And I do think of it as a privilege -- one that should not be denied for arbitrary reasons, but for good reasons, which make sense. If we're allowed to deny things to random people merely because they are privileges and those people are different, I propose you be denied the privilege of marriage because you have the name Maccabeus on the hatrack bulletin boards. If you want, I'll even make it against my religion. Is that a good reason?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, a religion is not something you make up and devise your own rules for. Since it seems likely that I will never get married anyway, I don't know that I care.
I don't think I will return to this thread. It has nothing to do with any of you; I have enjoyed this argument and would willingly go on. I just don't have the emotional energy available right now. I just flunked a major test and am seeing visions of myself as a janitor when I'm 70. Clearly I'm not being very convincing anyway, so I don't see the point in going on for the time being.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm perfectly happy with religions devisiing their own rules, so long as they don't try to enforce them on others purely for religious reasons.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
