-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Robert D. wrote:
| That pretty much is why I find Gödel’s theorem all save paradoxical.
| It showed me, fortunately I was young enough to fully except it as a
| truth, that formalism cannot do anything (as does the halting
| problem). Without these knowings I might as well still think the
| contrary, which would indeed reduce my own awareness of the greater
| picture.
We humans are neither consistent, nor logical, though. We are still
guided by imperatives that we have little control over, for example
(fear, lust, greed, envy, gluttony…). We can control them, but only if
we a) are aware of them, and b) have the intellect (Freud’s super-ego)
to keep them in check. 
Not to mention that Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies to abstract
concepts more than human nature. Machines and abstract systems are in
conflict with human nature, necessitating process for interaction (from
social rules, ethics [distinct from morals, which are more on a
meta-level], software development methodologies, what have you) in a
meaningful and consistent terms.
The game of Chinese whispers (Stille Post in Germany) demonstrates this
quite efficiently, as well as the Mythical Man-Month: Adding people to a
late project makes it later, since communication increases to the square
of the team size).
Alas, process has the problem of creating friction and stifles
creativity, if taken to the extreme. The balance has to be found between
human nature and process, and this is a constant struggle.
Too much process stifles creativity and the wellbeing of those
participating in the process, and no process endangers the success of
the task at hand (whatever that task may be).
| Now not to become too serious, I deduce from Gödel’s theorem that if a
| human being would fully understand the nature of the human brain at
| least one of the following things would happen
| (1) 42 becomes nil
| (2) Life, the universe and evertyhing would vanish immediately.
| (42) All of Doug Adam’s works will be put on the index.
| (SSSSSSSSSS0) I will try to find the error in Gödel’s proof.
Which are probable events, just not likely. 
Phillip G.
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan
Don’t sacrifice clarity for small gains in “efficiency”.
~ - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plaugher)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkgIUKwACgkQbtAgaoJTgL+FsQCfeXdwBkTknOD8SRuFTF5Euwjn
8A8An3F51NfuPkYJBx/iXkX36RHLPsjI
=BVdM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
