| Author | Message | ||
Cocanada Moderator Username: Cocanada Post Number: 18664 Registered: 01-2008 Rating: N/A |
maa saduvulu neeku kothaga anipinchachu exam raayaganee....vaopourize ayipotundi knowledge | ||
Der_schuler Side Hero Username: Der_schuler Post Number: 5097 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 148.159.160.51 Rating: N/A |
Nuvvu Godel pan va....Godel matash sesad science hubris ni Godel Escher and Bach ani oka computability theory meedha populist introduction untundhi sadhuvu..... If u already good with Theory of computation, it might bore you death...but as an UG, it was difficult for me when I had no effing idea of computability...... | ||
Cocanada Moderator Username: Cocanada Post Number: 18638 Registered: 01-2008 Rating: N/A |
Godel fans  | ||
Der_schuler Side Hero Username: Der_schuler Post Number: 5096 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 148.159.160.51 Rating: N/A |
Bump for nisarga and others, interested | ||
Cocanada Moderator Username: Cocanada Post Number: 18505 Registered: 01-2008 Rating: |
 | ||
Pathfinder Comedian Username: Pathfinder Post Number: 1154 Registered: 04-2009 Posted From: 216.191.245.130 Rating: |
theorems tho aadukunetodiki, sinna sinna logics artham kaavassala emanna ante exception antaru chass...theorems tho aaduko poyi chiru's Best Punches A - Baava entha nokkestunnado!! B - Baava Rest Room ki daaretu? C - Akkada rendu unnayi baaa deniki ellamantaav? D - Baava, nee gorintaaku pandinda assala? E - All of the above, My Vote goes to E | ||
Der_schuler Side Hero Username: Der_schuler Post Number: 5076 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 148.159.160.51 Rating: |
Untrue....as far as modern physics is concerned I think...The classic instance is that of theorizing the GUT on the back of string theory. You use the phrase "speculation based on scientific methodology" which is an oxymoron of sorts as the philosophy of science doesn't leave room for speculation but only for experimentation and I guess there is a huge difference amongst the two. Furthermore, Science values hypothesis as much as it does metaphysics. In that context, religion (metaphysics) is no lesser a candidate for consideration than a "scientific" hypothesis. The basic tenet of experimentation nonetheless, is still steeped in what purists call, the axiom of choice. That everything in this universe is observable and quantifiable with in the bounds of attainable precision. This view was defended by all modern science on the back of existentialist schools of philosophy i.e the notion of reality being privy to human eye. It was ironic that QM itself shattered this belief system and the system of duality which was so widely propounded by acclaimed spiritual masters some eons before modern apparatus of purported rationality. Even If I were to force myself to be bought in by scientism and If I believe that the acceptable choice axiom is that there is a THEORY OF EVERYTHING, I am still at cross roads ala Einstein was ( and docketed it as the Physical equivalent of Russell's Paradox) with the notion that: "If there is a theory of everything, what is its nature, is it a definite,immutable and predefined algorithm..or not?? If it is, the fact that we have almost no clue on even one millionth of its complexity begs for the resolution of the question of its complexity i.e cyclic or acyclic???? If there is not a stationary algorithm (leaving apart the chicken egg conundrum)i.e infinite complexity w.r.t any Turing complete computational scheme, How can humans even hope to map it???" |
