What Does The Name Of The Almighty God (JHWH)
US
US 6172941 (filing date Dec. 16, 1999) Author:
Erich
Bieramperl, 4040 Linz, Austria
1) Because there are no deterministic point of times, the status of a system can neither be
future status. There is nowhere any type of determinism. Since the classical physics as
well as the quantum theory are based on the postulate that a system is in a certain status
at a certain "point in time" (in the first case as points of phase space, and in the other
case as probability distributions in phase space), neither theory can be completely
consistent (see also THOMAS BREUER / 1997)
[1].
capable of describing the origin of human consciousness. The auto-adaptation theory
described herein could be capable of this; the quantum theory cannot. (Wigner postulated
that complex quantum mechanics delivers a usable description of the physical reality
only when there is no "subjective sensing". The author holds the view that subjective
sensing also exists in atomic and subatomic structures).
also by a mechanical procedure, which produces "formulas and algorithms".For this
reason, the known logic theorems of GOEDEL, TARSKI or HENKIN are absolutely
applicable on such a model. GOEDEL`s incompleteness theorem
[3]
shows that each
extensive number theoretical model includes consistent formulations which cannot be
proven with the rules of the model, and which therefore are undecidable. This is valid also
to metatheoretical models and to meta-metatheoretical models etc.
For example, a self-
referential metatheoretical sentence like the type of the Goedel formulation
<I am provable>
is neither provable nor disprovable. A decision procedure for this proposition
leads to an
infinite regress. TARSKI showed that a decision procedure for number theoretical
"truth"[4]
is also impossible, and leads to an infinite regress. Thus, a self-referential sentence of
is a weaker notion than "truth". HENKIN showed that there are sentences, that assert their
own provability and "producibility" in a specific number theoretical model and which are
invariable "true"[5]. A self-referential sentence based on Henkins theorem would be: <It
exists a number theoretical model in which I am provable>. Strings of quantized elapse
times like TW and TW'
approach the domain of validity of HENKIN`s theorem. Applying
Henkins logic, these strings assert: <I will be produced to proved>. TW and TW's are
therefore strings or sentences that are produced in a specific formal model, which induces
its own decision procedure on truth, consistence, completeness and provability through
continued self-generation (see also
description to Fig.10).
elapse times are never asserted to be "true", "consistent", "complete" or "provable" to a
certain "point in time", because within the "number theoretical model" in which they are
produced, no "points of time" exist. This model also prohibits superior semantics or
metatheories or meta-metatheories. It is plainly obvious that each formal system, each
metatheory, each meta-metatheory and each semantics, in which axioms, strings or
sentences of any type are formulated, is the result of continued autonomous adaptation
(which is based on the quantization of elapse times) and therefore a derivation of the model
described in this work.
is not new. Already in early antiquity, many years before PLATO and ARISTOTLE, the
Hebrew Scriptures (2. Moses 3: 14) let this <source of all logic> say from itself: "JHWH"
(spoken: Jahwe or Jehovah), that is about: "I shall be proved"[6]. This sentence asserts its
own decision procedure on provability, truth, completeness and consistence; through a
specific formal system, that it "induces to be".
Mean in
Epistemoloy And Propositional Calculus?
see:
Excerpt of Patent
Description:
EP EP 01145406 A1 (filing
date Dec. 03,1999)
Consequences for metamathematics, propositional calculus, epistemology and philosophy are:
ascertained to be at a certain "point in time", nor "points in time" can be determined for a
2) Regarding WIGNER (1961)[2], an absolutely universally valid theory would have to be
3) Sequences of elapse times like TW and TW' are definable as strings of an axiomatic formal
system; albeit this system is a "time domain system" and not an arithmetic systems in the
usual sense of the classic number theory. Indeed, said formal system shows at least one
axiom and derives from it continuous strings of numbers through the application of a certain
algorithm. Regarding TURING, an axiomatic number theoretical system can be produced
the type <I am provable> is admittedly "true", but not "provable". It follows, that "provability"
In contrast to self-referential strings or sentences of the Gödel or Henkin type, strings of
4) The cognition, that a specific formal system exists asserting absolute universal validity, from
which everything has been produced and to whom all other systems have to be subordinated,
5) There is no "cognition" without "recognition".
References:
[1]
Thomas BREUER (1997) "Quantenmechanik: Ein Fall für Goedel" ISBN 3-8274-0191-7
[2]
Eugene WIGNER (1961) "Remarks on the Mind-Body-Question",
see also: Roger Penrose:"The Emperor`s New Mind"/ ISBN 0-19-286198-0 (page 381)
[3]
Kurt Goedel "On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related
Systems I. (1931),
see also:
Douglas HOFSTADTER "Goedel, Escher, Bach" (pg. 17) ISBN 0-394-74502-7
[4]
Douglas HOFSTADTER "Goedel, Escher, Bach"
(page 579, 580: "Tarski`s Theorem")
[5]
Douglas HOFSTADTER "Goedel, Escher, Bach"
(page 541: "Henkins Sentences")
[6]
See WIKIPEDIA
(note: the engl. JHWH-web-site became removed by
some nerds in 2007.
So the link to this site
has been deleted too.)
If you have any questions to this web-site, please contact: info @sensortime.com