Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe

[Kiranga]

Siwezi kuprove kitu ambacho sijaclaim. Proof tunayoitaka hapa ni Mungu hayupo, which is proposed by the topic under discussion.

Huja claim kwamba Mungu yupo?

 

[GoLang]

Proof hata ukiiona utaijua? Proof isiyo na mashaka unayoitaka ikoje?

Wewe unaweza kutoa proof isiyo mashaka kwamba Mungu yupo?

Mfano wa logical, scientific & mathematical proof isiyo na mashaka ni kama hii: Proof isiyo na mashaka

 

[GoLang]

Huja claim kwamba Mungu yupo?

Interest yangu ni kutaka kujua kwa uhakika kuwa Mungu hayupo, according to the topic. Labda ugeuze title basi na kuandika Mungu yupo, then discussion ianzie hapo. Nakushangaa sana unataka watu waamini au wakubali kuwa Mungu hayupo bila concrete proof.

 

[GoLang]

Mungu huwezi kumuelewa kwa akili za kiutu hata nikikuelezea, nikikwambia hivyo utakubali?

Lazima ueleze pasi na shaka kwa nini siwezi kumwelewa. Nami nikuulize swali, Sayansi says there is no difference between space and time, unakubali? Na kama unakubali can you explain how is that possible?

 

[Kiranga]

Mfano wa logical, scientific & mathematical proof isiyo na mashaka ni kama hii: Proof isiyo na mashaka

Proof yoyote inayoanza na "Let" inaanza na assumption, na hivyo haiwezi kukosa mashaka.

Hakuna proof inayokosa mashaka, soma Godel's incompleteness Theorems uelewe zaidi haya mambo.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

First Incompleteness Theorem: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F." (Raatikainen 2015)

Second incompleteness theorem
For each formal system F containing basic arithmetic, it is possible to canonically define a formula Cons(F) expressing the consistency of F. This formula expresses the property that "there does not exist a natural number coding a formal derivation within the system F whose conclusion is a syntactic contradiction." The syntactic contradiction is often taken to be "0=1", in which case Cons(F) states "there is no natural number that codes a derivation of '0=1' from the axioms of F."

Gödel's second incompleteness theorem shows that, under general assumptions, this canonical consistency statement Cons(F) will not be provable in F. The theorem first appeared as "Theorem XI" in Gödel's 1931 paper "On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I". In the following statement, the term "formalized system" also includes an assumption that F is effectively axiomatized.

Second Incompleteness Theorem: "Assume F is a consistent formalized system which contains elementary arithmetic. Then {\displaystyle F\not \vdash {\text{Cons}}(F)}

." (Raatikainen 2015)

This theorem is stronger than the first incompleteness theorem because the statement constructed in the first incompleteness theorem does not directly express the consistency of the system. The proof of the second incompleteness theorem is obtained by formalizing the proof of the first incompleteness theorem within the system F itself.

 

[Kiranga]

Interest yangu ni kutaka kujua kwa uhakika kuwa Mungu hayupo, according to the topic. Labda ugeuze title basi na kuandika Mungu yupo, then discussion ianzie hapo. Nakushangaa sana unataka watu waamini au wakubali kuwa Mungu hayupo bila concrete proof.

Huelewi kwamba mungu yupo/hayupo ni pande mbili za swali lile lile?

Umeonesha hata nature ya proof huielewi kwa kutoa mfano wako wa proof isiyo na mashaka, wakati proof inaanza na assumption.

Unaelewa hata unachotaka wewe mwenyewe ni nini?

 

[GoLang]

Proof yoyote inayoanza na "Let" inaanza na assumption, na hivyo haiwezi kukosa mashaka.

Hakuna proof inayokosa mashaka, soma Godel's incompleteness Theorems uelewe zaidi haya mambo.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

First Incompleteness Theorem: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F." (Raatikainen 2015)

Second incompleteness theorem
For each formal system F containing basic arithmetic, it is possible to canonically define a formula Cons(F) expressing the consistency of F. This formula expresses the property that "there does not exist a natural number coding a formal derivation within the system F whose conclusion is a syntactic contradiction." The syntactic contradiction is often taken to be "0=1", in which case Cons(F) states "there is no natural number that codes a derivation of '0=1' from the axioms of F."

Gödel's second incompleteness theorem shows that, under general assumptions, this canonical consistency statement Cons(F) will not be provable in F. The theorem first appeared as "Theorem XI" in Gödel's 1931 paper "On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I". In the following statement, the term "formalized system" also includes an assumption that F is effectively axiomatized.


This theorem is stronger than the first incompleteness theorem because the statement constructed in the first incompleteness theorem does not directly express the consistency of the system. The proof of the second incompleteness theorem is obtained by formalizing the proof of the first incompleteness theorem within the system F itself.

Kama hakuna proof isiyo na mashaka, basi hata hii ni ya mashaka, it cannot be an exception or rule out the rest of proofs, I cannot believe it.

 

[GoLang]

Huelewi kwamba mungu yupo/hayupo ni pande mbili za swali lile lile?

Umeonesha hata nature ya proof huielewi kwa kutoa mfano wako wa proof isiyo na mashaka, wakati proof inaanza na assumption.

Unaelewa hata unachotaka wewe mwenyewe ni nini?

Naelewa. Prove kwamba hiyo proof ni wrong au ina msahaka. Scientifically, sio kwa hadithi kama hizi.

 

[Kiranga]

Kama hakuna proof isiyo na mashaka, basi hata hii ni ya mashaka, it cannot be an exception or rule out the rest of proofs, I cannot believe it.

Who asked you to believe it? Why is belief even on discussion here?

 

[Kiranga]

Naelewa. Prove kwamba hiyo proof ni wrong au ina msahaka. Scientifically, sio kwa hadithi kama hizi.

Proof imeanza kwa assumption, sihitaji kwenda mbali zaidi ya hapo.

Hujathibitisha Mungu yupo.

 

[GoLang]

Huelewi kwamba mungu yupo/hayupo ni pande mbili za swali lile lile?

Umeonesha hata nature ya proof huielewi kwa kutoa mfano wako wa proof isiyo na mashaka, wakati proof inaanza na assumption.

Unaelewa hata unachotaka wewe mwenyewe ni nini?

Ninachotaka ni wewe kuprove Mungu hayupo. Acha kuzunguka. Sasa unasema existence na kutokuexist ni kitu kimoja!

 

[GoLang]

Proof imeanza kwa assumption, sihitaji kwenda mbali zaidi ya hapo.

Hujathibitisha Mungu yupo.

Akili yako inakuambia "Let" ni assumption? Let x = c is an assumption? Nimekuacha ujiwekee ushahidi wa ujinga wako then nikurarue.

 

[Kiranga]

Ninachotaka ni wewe kuprove Mungu hayupo. Acha kuzunguka. Sasa unasema existence na kutokuexist ni kitu kimoja!

Unaweza kuonesha alama za vidole za mwizi ambaye hayupo?

Kati ya anayesema mwizi yupo, na anayesema mwizi hayupo, nani anaweza kuonesha alama za vidole za mwizi?

Umeniomba proofs, nimekupa proof ya entropy na ya suffering.

Wewe hujatoa hata moja.

Mpaka hapo wewe ndiye unazunguka, nimekupa proofs mbili, wewe hujatoa hata moja.

 

[Kiranga]

Akili yako inakuambia "Let" ni assumption? Let x = c is an assumption? Nimekuacha ujiwekee ushahidi wa ujinga wako then nikurarue.

How is "let" not an assumption?

Someone is asking you to accept by faith that x=c. How is that not an assumption? How do you know that x=c ?

 

[GoLang]

Unaweza kuonesha alama za vidole za mwizi ambaye hayupo?

Kati ya anayesema mwizi yupo, na anayesema mwizi hayupo, nani anaweza kuonesha alama za vidole za mwizi?

Umeniomba proofs, nimekupa proof ya entropy na ya suffering.

Wewe hujatoa hata moja.

Mpaka hapo wewe ndiye unazunguka, nimekupa proofs mbili, wewe hujatoa hata moja.

Nimekuambia umetumia entropy vibaya, unakubali? Nimejibu mara kadhaa kuhusiana na hizo proofs zako 2, tena kwa kuquote, unaweza kurudi nyuma ukaangalia ni namna gani proofs zako zina flaws.

 

[Kiranga]

Nimekuambia umetumia entropy vibaya, unakubali? Nimejibu mara kadhaa kuhusiana na hizo proofs zako 2, tena kwa kuquote, unaweza kurudi nyuma ukaangalia ni namna gani proofs zako zina flaws.

Kuniambia kwamba nimetumia entropy vibaya hakufanyi kuwa nimetumia entropy vibaya kweli.

Nimejibu pingamizi lako mpaka kwa mfano wa bank accounts zisizopo kuwa na zero dollars, hujajibu pingamizi langu.

Unarudia kusema jambo ambalo nishalipinga kwa maelezo.

Hilo linaniambia kwamba, ama:-

1. Umesoma pingamizi hujalielewa.

Au.

2. Umesoma pingamizi na kulielewa, ila umekwepa kulijibu.

Yote mawili yananiambia huna hoja ya kunijibu.

 

[GoLang]

How is "let" not an assumption?

Someone is asking you to accept by faith that x=c. How is that not an assumption? How do you know that x=c ?

In science or mathematics, tunaposema let x = c, it means x assumes the same quality as c. Mfano, kwenye computer programming kama C/C++, naweza kudeclare variable kama hivi x = 2, when I print x, I should get 2 and not otherwise.
Hiyo siyo assumption, ni variable declaration.

 

[GoLang]

Kuniambia kwamba nimetumia entropy vibaya hakufanyi kuwa nimetumia entropy vibaya kweli.

Nimejibu pingamizi lako mpaka kwa mfano wa bank accounts zisizopo kuwa na zero dollars, hujajibu pingamizi langu.

Unarudia kusema jambo ambalo nishalipinga kwa malelezo.

Hilo linaniambia kwamba, ama:-

1. Umesoma pingamizi hujalielewa.

Au.

2. Umesoma pingamizi na kulielewa, ila umekwepa kulijibu.

Yote mawili yananiambia huna hoja ya kunijibu.

What is entropy?

 

[GoLang]

Kuniambia kwamba nimetumia entropy vibaya hakufanyi kuwa nimetumia entropy vibaya kweli.

Nimejibu pingamizi lako mpaka kwa mfano wa bank accounts zisizopo kuwa na zero dollars, hujajibu pingamizi langu.

Unarudia kusema jambo ambalo nishalipinga kwa maelezo.

Hilo linaniambia kwamba, ama:-

1. Umesoma pingamizi hujalielewa.

Au.

2. Umesoma pingamizi na kulielewa, ila umekwepa kulijibu.

Yote mawili yananiambia huna hoja ya kunijibu.

Hakuna kitu sijakujibu, na nipo hapa kukujibu, be sure hakuna hoja yako ngumu hata moja ya kukwepa, ndio maana nimesimamisha kazi zangu kwa ajili ya hoja zako nyepesi. Ukisema nimekwepa au sina hoja, haina maana ni kweli.

 

[Kiranga]

In science or mathematics, tunaposema let x = c, it means x assumes the same quality as c. Mfano, kwenye computer programming kama C/C++, naweza kudeclare variable kama hivi x = 2, when I print x, I should get 2 and not otherwise.
Hiyo siyo assumption, ni variable declaration.

Kwa hiyo unakubali au unakataa kwamba proof imeanza na assumption?

Unasema assumption si assumption hapa?

How is a fixed assumption a variable delaration?

Unaelewa kwamba fixed na variable ni vitu tofauti?

Unaelewa C/C++ ni logic iliyowekwa na watu tu, na unaweza kutengeneza computer language in which division by zero is allowed? Kitu ambacho katika hesabu hakiruhusiwi?

Unaelwa kwamba kufanya C/C++ kama standard ya logic ni kuonesha udhaifu wako wa kuelewa logic?

Unaelewa C++ ina disadvantages kibao tu?