It seems that in any system of rules there is always the white elephant which pushes the system beyond what was meaningful. Is this like a reverse Godel? He says that there are statements that are grammatical but can'tbe proved while here we have a situation that is proven in the sense that it has been arrived at by playing out the rules yet it no longer has any meaning. The logic is just to keep applying the rules (i.e. a new game until one of the players goes 2 ahead) but it has entered territory that no-one has ever seen before, or even ever thought about before, and terrtory that everyone is convinced will never be trod again.
On one hand nothing is happening at all - unless you accept the rules and the meaning and value that has been arrived at by accepting those rules.
On the other once rules are accepted the game has been pushed outside the envelope ever imagined in the 137 years since tennis was invented. This is almost a Turing Halting problem because conceivably there is a tennis game that never ends. This possibility means that tennis is flawed altho in reality this game is extremely unlikely to happen.
Now for the SRH it would be great if there was some kind of reason why all games will always have their achilles heel... some kind of paradox that means that all systems of rules are incomplete. Godel showed that some kind of Godel numbering was required before his paradox could be constructed. But aren't there an infinite number of possible isomorphism - most not so meaningful and anthropocentric as Godel's - which can play havoc with systems? What is the limit to isomorphism?
Just as few vague thoughts after the tennis.
No comments:
Post a Comment