Can everything be explained by the use of logic ?

I study physics at college, and I have to know those things, but it is called Gödel´s incompleteness theorem and it states that any logical system, set of rules, that kind of thing is imcomplete or contradictory in itself. A example often used to explain it would be:

consider the statement "this statement is false", now if its true it would be false, and if you say its false then it has to be true. And the theorem says that a contradiction like this one can be made in any logical system.
If you want to read more about this I quickly searched in the Internet about this, and here what I´ve found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem

Originally posted by Atlantis001
I study physics at college, and I have to know those things, but it is called Gödel´s incompleteness theorem and it states that any logical system, set of rules, that kind of thing is imcomplete or contradictory in itself. A example often used to explain it would be:

consider the statement "this statement is false", now if its true it would be false, and if you say its false then it has to be true. And the theorem says that a contradiction like this one can be made in any logical system.
If you want to read more about this I quickly searched in the Internet about this, and here what I´ve found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem

In a way this is very simple: We use symbols and sounds to represent ideas. These ideas are parts to a model (a concept that functions as close to real as possible). A model is not real, and "real" is not a model: it's like digital and analog, digital can never make a sign-wave as true as analog.

We know they are an energy. We know that the images mimic humans that have died. Based on the knowledge that we do have, ghosts do not fit in with our understanding of nature. EDIT: I meant to add, we do not even know ghost DO exist in first place

your last sentence, your edit completely negates the entire pararaph that preceeds it. If you don't know something exists, how can you know what it is made of........or anything else about it? Those are not facts you were stating, those were beliefs. Beliefs have no place in a conversation on logic. I have no belief in this particular matter one way or another, it was merely an easy example. The phenomena could be real.......and proven one day by gathering data, analyzing and scrutinizing it. .......or it could merely be there are many people with over active imaginations. The simple point is that there are no facts on the subject...........therefore it could not be discussed as logical or illogical. There are no facts to to support it........nor denounce it.

You have used the word "know" quite often in this thread. How is it that you "know" the information you are gathering on a subject is definitely correct? (Strictly from the "brain in the jar" point of view).

scientific method. We KNOW why the grass is green. We KNOW why the sun rises and sets. We KNOW many things.....as the data can be tested time and time again always rendering the same results, 100% of the time. These are called facts.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In a way this is very simple: We use symbols and sounds to represent ideas. These ideas are parts to a model (a concept that functions as close to real as possible). A model is not real, and "real" is not a model: it's like digital and analog, digital can never make a sign-wave as true as analog.

Thats something I think too. We are limited to symbols to represent the "real" world, like if we can´t understand it directly, but I think Plato already said something like that before. Is there another way of acquiring knowledge of this "real" world, directly I mean ? I know thats a difficult task, or impossible since to ask this question I already needed to make use of the limited "logic". But we must note that to classify this difficult, or even impossible, its is made with logic, and its limited. So, in some way its not so impossible.
Back to what you said about symbols and models, I think we can try to separate things this way(yup.. I know that I using logic to do this, so its limited) ; first, there is the real world as is it really is, which is undefinable, because it is beyond logic, it is the "nothingness" that you spoke of ; second, there is the world of models, ideas, and thoughts. For they to exist, its needed that we made use of logic to limit the "real" world so our brains could understand it, it is like to explain something complicated to a child, we need to simplify it, and therefore some knowledge about the subject we are explaining should be ignored in order to simplify it. So while we use logic we are doomed to be ignorant, and we always be incomplete without ever achieving our goal. That extends to everything... you know... everything is about learning; third, I would say thats the world of symbols, thats the symbols we use to represent the models that I told before, like the concept of the quantity "one", and the symbol "1", used to represent that concept, or the text I used to explain it.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Thats something I think too. We are limited to symbols to represent the "real" world, like if we can´t understand it directly, but I think Plato already said something like that before. Is there another way of acquiring knowledge of this "real" world, directly I mean ?... ...represent the models that I told before, like the concept of the quantity "one", and the symbol "1", used to represent that concept, or the text I used to explain it.

In the Lotus Sutra, the crowd that had gathered to hear the words of Buddha, begged him to tell then the true nature of the real world. Buddha was reluctant, cause no one would understand, but finally he gave in. The text at this point is missing. The next line is all of the people praising Buddha for his great wisdom. The missing text was not lost or hidden, this was written this way to illustrate a point. Logic can not explain the true nature of the real world. In order to understand the true nature of the real world, you must stop, listen, feel and let the inner voice talk to you. There is one thing I will tell you about the real world, we live in it. It touches us at all points, it moves through us and we through it. It can be understood.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
your last sentence, your edit completely negates the entire pararaph that preceeds it. If you don't know something exists, how can you know what it is made of........or anything else about it? Those are not facts you were stating, those were beliefs. Beliefs have no place in a conversation on logic. I have no belief in this particular matter one way or another, it was merely an easy example. The phenomena could be real.......and proven one day by gathering data, analyzing and scrutinizing it. .......or it could merely be there are many people with over active imaginations. The simple point is that there are no facts on the subject...........therefore it could not be discussed as logical or illogical. There are no facts to to support it........nor denounce it.

scientific method. We KNOW why the grass is green. We KNOW why the sun rises and sets. We KNOW many things.....as the data can be tested time and time again always rendering the same results, 100% of the time. These are called facts.

Yes, yes, yes. Discussing the existence of ghosts is quite illogical, because of the lacvk of information. A poorly constructed point, I must say.

You're missing my point. If you take the brain in the jar point of view, all the data you are collecting is manipulated by the person watching over the brains. So, the results that happen 100% of the time are artificially produced, and could not be called facts...even through sceintific method. Nevermind about it as I was just thinking that those who follow that line of thing can not possibly grasp logic.

oh brother.......