Spot on 👌

Adam was created in the image of God, and God is one; but Adam as one is a duality of male/female---a unity of opposites...

It's terrifyingly beautiful. I can see why some people run away from it.

To prove a statement is to show that the statement can be derived from the rules of your theory (i.e. it is true within your theory). So we don't _prove_ false statements, we _disprove_ them. In classical logic, you can disprove a statement by proving that it contradicts the rules of your theory, or by proving its negation. So yes, you can _prove_ that "it is true that a statement is false", but you cannot prove the false statement itself.

@@bejdavies I see, thank you. As a layman, it seems there's quite some overlap/redundancy in some of the terms. As if the distinction isn't explicitly made that, however much you might prove something to be true, the proof/symbol/abstraction will never be the same thing as the original thing to be proved. It seems to me like there are actualities/'truths' (e.g. the phone I'm holding) and understandings/symbols/abstractions/'proofs' (e.g. the symbolic knowledge of the phone I'm holding). Understandings/abstractions/symbols encode information about actualities, but never enough for it to equal the actuality. So, G: "this statement cannot be known by the mind" can only be partially understood (like everything else we make abstractions of), and so G is 'true'/actual, it cannot be known by the mind, and we do not need to understand it fully to determine so.

Thank you Laurent!

Interesting you say that. I believe Zizek's idea comes from Lacan's concept of the "empty square", and I do actually make this connection in my book.

@@bejdavies Oh that's so interesting! I'm becoming more and more curious to read your book ;)

Just relax and let it fumigate a bit. You'll get it after the 100th viewing lol.

Very kind of you. Thanks!

Your videos are so good and useful! Very skilled thinker! Though I sometimes wonder what this level of thinking does for one’s life, being someone on the diamond mind grind myself. Keep up the good work my guy!

Meaning?

@@Rhyane490 From a song, I love you and Buddha Too - "You are a unameable You are unknowable All we have is metaphor That's what time and space are for Is the universe your thought? You are and you are not You are many you are one Ever ending just begun."

In your own time my friend! 🙏😁 Thank you!

Thanks a bunch. I have been made aware of him, but I do wish I had known about him while I was writing my own book tbh, as I devote an entire chapter to the connetion to the hemispheres of the brain. I'm keen to read the book you mention!

That's rad that you talked about it, I've got your book on my list to check out. Iain's book is a monster hahaa, but something of a bible for me at the moment. He also has a great youtube channel with lots of content. Do you have any reccomendations for me to check out?

You'd still have 0 = false, and 1 = true. You'd just also have ½ = both. So, no true = false.

That isn't the opening statement though. That statement comes after establishing that we are talking about theories of the foundations of mathematics, which are stronger than propositional logic. Perhaps you skipped the beginning? 😅

That's clearly not so. Consider incomplete logics like intuitionism, which are grounded on the constructivist equation of proof and truth. I discussed this in the video, but the equation can be taken in two directions: paracompleteness, and paraconsistency. There are even such logics which are neither complete nor consistent.

@@bejdavies I don't disagree, I'm just saying that the early starting point of "Truth is equivalent to Proof" you give at the beginning of the video can not be a premise in an argument for Completeness, as it presumes what it intends to demonstrate (i.e., that every true proposition is provable)