[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Tuukka]
1) any sufficiently powerful logical system cannot
 prove it's own completeness unless it is inconsistent.
2) And if a system is incomplete, there are statements in the system
which cannot be proven true or false.

What happens if you change "true" and "false" into "good" and "evil"? A 
"logical system" turns into an intellectual static value pattern, and an 
unprovable statement turns into an act whose moral value cannot be 
determined from within the system. And if the act is good, it is Dynamic 
Quality. This is MOQ. Right?

[Craig]
So we have after substituting:
1) any sufficiently powerful consistent intellectual static value pattern
cannot prove it's own completeness.
2) And if a system is incomplete, there are acts in the system
whose moral value cannot be determined to be "good" or "evil"
from within the system.
3) :. any sufficiently powerful consistent intellectual static value pattern
cannot prove that there are not acts in the system whose moral value
cannot be determined to be "good" or "evil" from within the system.

2 points:
a) In Godel's proof true and false are assumed to be contradictories.
In ethical systems good and evil are assumed to be contrary; good and
not good would be contradictories.
b) In Godel's system statements are assumed true or false categorically
& provability is relative to a system of axioms/inference rules.
But an ethical system may differ in that what the ethical fundamental
principles are and what is determined good, interact.
Craig