Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem

Now what's all this shit about?
In plain, laymen english please!
(Calculus is the fartherst I'll ever bother with math)

I'm fascinated with everything it (seems) to imply but I'm not sure i quite get it.

>>1
It's about numbers and stuff

Gôdel's works state that 'in any complex enough formal system, there are theorems that are true but cannot be demonstrated'. In simpler words : the power of mathematics is 'limited'.

>>3
Sounds like religion, amirite?

Some religious people have used the theorem this way : "Since the non-existence of god cannot be demonstrated, he may exist". Opponents of religions coutered this argument : "Since the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot be demonstrated, he may exist". I think that a sane way of thinking within the limits imposed by Gödel's discoveries is deductive thinking coupled with occam's razor.

"Since the non-existence of god cannot be demonstrated, he may exist"
That's not GIT, it's just simple logic.

Read Godel, Escher, Bach... GEB is written for the non-mathematician and its a great book

>>5
imo people who use occams razor in any sort of argument are retarded, just my personal opinion.  i agree with the theory, not because the simplest sounding answer is usually the right one, but rather because the right answer most simply explains things accurately.  people use it to suggest retarded things because they sound easier though.  i dislike these people.

I stated occam's razor in the frame of rational thinking, >>8. Please do not quote partial fragments of my writings. Maybe is your brain is unable to remember more than five consecutive words ? Now gtfo.
>>6 : yes; both statements are equally true and useless.

It is a shame that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so complex it’s not more widely understood. Its implications are fundamental and far reaching - like machines can never be as “intelligent” as humans

The main result in layman’s terms – “Given a consistent set of axioms there may exists theorems that can neither shown to be true or false.”

It is a shame that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so complex it’s not more widely understood

like machines can never be as “intelligent” as humans

...Irony.

>>10

This is one of the implications I was really drawn too. My thought is though, aren't humans just as susceptible to GIT? I mean, it's basically what existentialism/nihilism/absurdism states.

I did try to read Godel, Escher, Bach earlier in my life. Probably too early and for all the wrong reasons. I'd like to pick it up one day again though...