But a social system isn't (just) a 'system of rules'. It also has beliefs and various cause-effect and dependency issues related to environment and biology that cause Godel's to be inapplicable. The fact that it consists of anything(!) more than a system of rules is enough to invalidate Godel's. Godel's simply isn't applicable to a broad enough set of examples. Though Godel's may keep you from proving it).
Pardon my ignorance, but I would like to know, in a clear, consise language, about the above examples that can constitute "more than a set ot rules". Think of it: Does the laws of science really exist in the real world, or do they exist only in our heads? Put it in another manner: Do you really see this eco-system diagram when we make a stroll in the woods? Do you see mathematical equations spouting out of your car engines? Notes: More details explaining this and more on Godel's Theorem in another (now half-completed) non-political posting.
The reality is that the concept of 'social system' is entirely too broad for the conept of 'self-consistent language' to be applied. Where did the requirement for 'consistency' in a social setting come from in the first place? And what does 'consistency' actually mean in that context?
Godel's Theorem applies to all systems, including illogical (as in inconsistent) ones, except itself (so it has incompleteness too). If you insist, I hope you can show me some examples.
A naive interpretation might be that they always make decisions the same way or perhaps the same selection. Either will fail because it won't respond to changes in the environment. Clearly in conflict with the premise of being 'consistent'.
Yes, for a same set of situation with perfect information, a rational person will always choose the best choice (if it exists). (Now, I know we don't get perfect information easily, but I shall handle this seperate issue in another post, or in the paper itself, not here.) However, I don't quite understand how always choosing the best choice has anything to do with inconsistency? You may call a simplified assumption naive, but then, a lot of other people start with "naive" assumptions that eventually make full-blown theories. Einstein, for example, had this assumption that light travels at a constant speed no matter at what speed you observe it, and this definitely seems "naive" also because it has goes against "common sense". _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com