What did he mean by this?

What did he mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

That's not even close to what Godel proved

You have to TRY to see God.

nigga that don't make no sense

Don't have a clue. He's enlightened and our puny brains can never understand.

wat

>you must have faith in God to clean your room
calm down pete

What if your one axiom is that there are no axioms...
Woah...

He's right that proof is impossible but the next sentence is a non sequitur.

>people take this zionist boomer seriously

Peterson is a fraud and a kike shill.

What the fuck is he talking about? This hack has literally admitted to being an atheist.

Then you don't exist and nothing matters. That is the very basis of nihilism and why it sucks.
He meant that until we have a way of explaining the universe, we have to assume it was a supernatural factor, otherwise reality as we have constructed falls down.

This. Maybe it's only a poor choice of words though or out of context tweet

Godel proved that not all the statments that are true from a set of axioms can be proved.

What he was trying was trying to say is OP is a faggot.

And there you have it, the true root of all indoctrination for Mr Peterson, a goddamed gypsy shaman trick

That he is absolutely retarded.

>therefore
It does not follow.

Oh, bucko. Look at what you've done. You've spent hours and hours fretting over saying something stupid in interviews, but then you tweet this.

That he reads Sup Forums.

The fact that this academic Charles Manson is gathering so many blindly unquestioning followers alarms me.

Woah...

he means he is a fucking psychologist to who mathematics and logic look like voodoo magic

He is perhaps right in that science operates under certain unspoken axioms, but why this would be belief in God I'm not sure.

Not necessarily God, but you need to believe in some axioms to be able to get anywhere.
For example in physics, classical (Newtonian) mechanics are also based on a few axioms, which are identifiable with experiments (so it really works in real life), but cannot really be explained, so you just have to take it as a fact - see conservation of momentum. Still, some classical mechanics axioms were proven actually incorrect by relativistic mechanics, and I'm pretty sure a lot of currently commonly accepted axioms, or laws of physics will be proven false in the future too.

Maybe the similar thing applies to philosophy, where getting anywhere does indeed require a higher cause than "everything happened randomly", as if everything is random then there's no point arguing anyway.

...

It's been a while, but if I remember correctly, Godel's proof is something like this:
You can either have a complete system that is internally incoherent, or you can have an incomplete system that is internally coherent, but you cannot have a complete system that is also internally coherent. Did I remember correctly?

Example: Either you have a complete system (such as a religious system) that is FULLY comprehensive but suffers from internal inconsistencies and paradoxes; OR you have an incomplete system (such as Science) that will never be comprehensive but CAN be internally consistent and without paradoxes.

BUT, you could never have (for example) a Science that is TOTALLY comprehensive AND internally consistent without paradoxes.

>What did he mean by this?
That he does not understand logic

This is Black Science Man tier retardation.

Sounds like presuppositionalism. The heck? Thought Peterson was an atheist.

>Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

I think it is: if you have a formal system that is powerful enough to do arithmetic then there are statements of that formal system that are true but unprovable.

Nobody knows what a lot of the babble that spews from his mouth means but we’re supposed to pretend it’s profound

Finaly the right wing answer to the Black Science Man: Canadian Philosophy Man!
Not empty those wallet, bucko. Doctor wants his 10 bucks.

he means axioms exist

>Thought Peterson was an atheist.
What do you mean by atheist? What do you mean by believing? What do you mean by God? Don't try to put him on a binary yes or no question! It's a spectrum!

>tfw lampwick takes over my sexual urges and forces me to watch fart porn

>that are true but unprovable.
Why would you say that it is true if it's unprovable?

Godel constructed a statement that asserts its own unprovability.

So, he's a post-modernist now?

I thought Godel proved that math can't be internally consistent or some shit iono I just watched a Numbrephile video on his Incompleteness Theorem a few days ago and forgot most of it. Shit like that needs a double exposure to sink in.

But doesn't godel's theorem prove that it's unprovable?

Ah, yes! Thank you, user. You're helping it come back to me.
Applying that to what Peterson says in OP's post:
You can prove/disprove God, but first you must have an unprovable assumption (axiom: statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true) which is tantamount to Faith.
This would be the "logically coherent but non-comprehensive (because you start with assumptions)" part of the theorem, I believe?

Sometimes I get turned around on this stuff...

...

His theorem just provided the sentence. So now if there is a chain of deductions from axioms to that sentence then that would mean that the formal system is inconsistent, that is, false statements can be proven. Otherwise there is no way to prove that sentence and so the formal system is incomplete, that is, there are true but unprovable sentences. If you can prove that a formal system is consistent then it means it must be incomplete.

Godel's proof was more narrow than this hack social scientist book salesmen is representing it as

Godel used set theory to prove that mathematical proofs are fundamentally circular because they reference the axioms of mathematics

this is not a broad rigorous proof that can be used for whatever you want

...

In order for the universe to be knowable, we need brains we can trust. We can't trust brains that were randomly thrown together by unintelligent forces driven only to successfully reproduce. We need to know our brains were engineered to perceive the universe as it is, not simply in ways that are useful to reproducing

Yes. Part of the trouble is that Godel deals directly with Paradox which by nature is an infinite recursion. Think "Fractal."

First you have to make an assumption in order to prove something as definitively true, so your system of logic is "open" on one end, namely where the original assumption is made.

For a formal system of logic, someone who "proves" the non-existence of God first must themselves make faith-based axiomatic assumptions. Also same for a formal system of logic that "proves" God's existence.

Descartes flirted with this when he reduced existence down to "I think, therefore I am." The "I think" is the axiom (self-evident assumption). Assumption because there is always someone in the crowd that will chime in "But how do you KNOW that you think?".
Descartes: "Ok, fine. I'm assuming I think because I can't go any more exact than that."

Nice!

All proofs start with axioms because otherwise you get into a endless loop of how do you prove thats.
1+1=2? How do you prove what 1 is? You just assume that 1 exists is a proven fact - an axiom.
When it comes to theology atheists choose the axiom that the universe exists and deists must prove it was created by God. Deists start with the axiom that the existence of the universe it proof it was created so atheists would have to prove it wasn't.

what a pseud

Nice twitter meme man. So funny. People that post Sup Forums memes on twitter and vice versa are so fucking funny and hilarious. They definitely shouldn't jump off a cliff.

Classical theism 101

>This sentence is unprovable

Yea, thinking about it, is this really a properly formed sentence?

What is the subject of the sentence? What exactly does "This" refer to ? Can you tell me?

I mean, isn't this sentence actually nonsense?

I see the point of the first sentence but how he got from there to the second statement is puzzling.

peterson can be really retarded when he strays outside his field of expertise. which is now sadly 80% of the time.

Postmodernist interpretation of truth. JBP needs to stick to the self help circuit and not talk philosophy.

>everything i disagree with is postmodernism
keep sorting, friend.

There is no god. Only annihilation is true. Prepare your feeble mind for the void.

he's kind of a pseud, but it is a valid point.

there's no philosophy that can be based on "logic and reason and evidence" by itself. a purpose, a moral principle has to come first, and one that isn't justified by anything else. because otherwise how could you decide how to use logic and reason? would you just go outside and start counting blades of grass? why not? it's logical. logic can provide means but not the ultimate ends.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes

I like some of Jordan Peterson but his religious shit is out there and he desperately tries to connect everything into models, regardless of how much of a stretch it is.

Anyone better I could listen to? I'm still going to finish his book (got a free trial for audiobooks).

That he is a retard

Peterson is not as smart as he thinks he is

>there has to be a god for observable nature to be true
The concept of a god who's word is always truth is an axiom itself you nigger.

This. Peterson is not only a kike, but a moron, who would have us overturn empiricism, and replace it with blind faith.

I think he means that to prove something is true (as in right or good) there must be right and wrong.
There is no absolute right and wrong without God.

But this sounds a lot like the kinda shit he was trying to pull with Harris, when they couldn't agree on what truth was.

How Can God Be Real If Our Rooms Arent Clean

Literally what Peterson is saying you absolute retard.

so is autism, lad