Tyranny or Freedom?

DDHv wrote:

Now, why was an elitist like Russell who openly championed scientific dictatorship so concerned by Godel? Well, because Godel, in mathematical terms, destroyed the very core of the globalist ideology. He proved that the globalist aspirations of godhood would never be realized.

That statement reads as... well, deranged.

"Aspirations of godhood"? Seriously? That's just a ridiculous caricature of a political position the guy doesn't like. Globalists don't aspire to flawless omnipotent control of the freaking universe or something.

They're not comic book super villains, cackling away in their evil lairs plotting total domination of the human race.

Whoever wrote that has little to no understanding of Russell, Goedel, the incompleteness theorem and time (Goedel published his work in 1931, Russell's political philosophy was a thing he did after WW2).

Trying to apply the incompleteness theorem to something not covered by it (it concerns itself with the limits of axiomatic systems in formal logic) is such a blatant mistake that only someone utterly blinded by his need to make a political point on a conservative/libertarian website would make.

Speaking of people not understanding what the incompleteness theorems say and do, here's DDHv:

DDHv wrote:I ran into Godel's work about two decades back. IIRC, he provided a mathematical proof that any model cannot be a complete model of the process.

This suggests that unexpected consequences of actions must always happen.

No. Boiled down to its core point, Gödels' theorem states that, in any consistent logical system S there must be an expression E that cannot be proven using methods and tools from within S. An example of this is 1 + 1 = 2 and the logical system we call mathematics; Gödel showed that it is impossible to prove the above result correct using the tools of mathematical analysis.

There is nothing in there about "unexpected consequences". That's bullshit DDHv added out of his own volition, and does not follow from Gödel's work in any way.

(And before you even start: "logical system" means any system constructed using the rules and language of formal logic)

Also from the above:

Now, why was an elitist like Russell who openly championed scientific dictatorship so concerned by Godel? Well, because Godel, in mathematical terms, destroyed the very core of the globalist ideology. He proved that the globalist aspirations of godhood would never be realized. There are limits to the knowledge of man, and limits to what he can control. This is not something globalists can ever accept, for if they did, every effort they have made for decades would be pointless.

If this argument is correct, it suggests that the best society would be adaptive toward good goals, rather than controlled using models. A licentious society would have poor goals, a tyrannical one would be using control. A society with liberty would have good goals, but use creativity rather than force to produce results.

Russell was concerned about Gödel's work because Gödel invalidated one of the core findings of Russell's and Whitehead's extraordinary work on Principia Mathematica (not to be confused with Newton's work of the same name).

It's very understandable that a man like Russell, having poured years of his life into a work as grand as Principia, is a bit "concerned" about the findings of a young upstart that directly contradict his.

And let's remember that Russell's political philosophy arose from having lived through WW1 and WW2 and the beginnings of the cold war, not his work in mathematics and philosophy.

[quote="The E"]

snip

(And before you even start: "logical system" means any system constructed using the rules and language of formal logic)

[quote]

My opinion is that there is a reasonable extension to informal logic, although with less rigor. This is the existence of unexpected results. Of course, this is probably connected with my basic assumptions (see signature).

Also from the above:

snip

"="The E"

Russell was concerned about Gödel's work because Gödel invalidated one of the core findings of Russell's and Whitehead's extraordinary work on Principia Mathematica (not to be confused with Newton's work of the same name).

It's very understandable that a man like Russell, having poured years of his life into a work as grand as Principia, is a bit "concerned" about the findings of a young upstart that directly contradict his.

And let's remember that Russell's political philosophy arose from having lived through WW1 and WW2 and the beginnings of the cold war, not his work in mathematics and philosophy."

I wasn't aware of the time frames. I sit corrected on this.
My thinking is still that goal orientation (freedom but not license) works better than theory in most things. Theory is useful but not to be completely trusted. Again, this is because of my basic assumptions.

A parallel would be the way that recent supercomputers use multiple lower capability processors instead of a very fast central processor. In economics and other social systems, the complexity gets so high that data choke becomes a major problem even before unexpected results occur.

Don't expect me to change the idea that everyone gets something wrong somewhere, - working using this idea has produced results for me. My investments are returning a GREAT annualized return. It is too bad investing was a late decision! Assuming my portfolio grows to a size where my return per hour is reasonable . . ..

DDHv wrote:My opinion is that there is a reasonable extension to informal logic, although with less rigor. This is the existence of unexpected results. Of course, this is probably connected with my basic assumptions (see signature).

The incompleteness theorem relies on absolute rigor. It does not deal with something as fuzzy as political theories.

I wasn't aware of the time frames. I sit corrected on this.

Do you never check your sources? Do you always accept things people say if they sound vaguely like something you would like to believe?

It took me only a couple minutes to read up on Russell, his political theories, and the core concepts of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, all enough to figure out that the person you were quoting was talking out of his ass.

It seems to me that, if you are so bad at verifying things, you should probably stay away from internet pundits. You're basically entering a disease-infested pit without an adequate immune system.

The canadates of both political parties are flawed. Hillary Clinton is a crook:



and Donald Trump a baffon, enjoy the song King Trump :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUQfCBdWOh4

As to tyrany the "Progressive" Elites of theDemocrat party have been near dictatorial and so I'll vote for Trump better a baffon than a crook:



IMO Poker