so, in my drawing class, my professor mentioned the recent news about muon business, and this girl started talking about how everything could be logically understood (and would be, presumably, by people) and how everything had a cause and effect. now, i mentioned bell’s theorem and his experiments on non-causality (i originally got interested in this because of it’s implications on free will.

here’s another page on bell’s theorem that breaks it down really well. here, there’s a quote attributed to Stapp stating Bell’s Theorem as “the most profound discovery of science.” (which the author agrees with).

also, at the bottom of the page, there’s a quick mention about gödel’s theorem, which of course can be used to challenge the imo silly assumption that the universe would ever be logically understood (that of course is based on the assumption that the universe is rational at all). big word translation: rational epistemology, rational ontology.

anyway, although godel’s theorem has often been used fallaciously, i believe that it wouldn’t be incorrect to say that godel’s theorem does say that the universe can not be explained at the very least, by any deductive rational framework. and, if the very substrate of our existence is a formal system, then it can not be defined except on some higher order. so, whether that implies some true ontology, we could never know, right?

incidentally, john bell runs an annual practical reasoning and rationality workshop. there are proceedings for some of ’em. look neat, but it’ll be a while before i ever get the time to read them. also, the applied logic colloquium looks cool too.

might as well list all the other cool stuff i found: