>>What makes his ideas interesting is what he proved.
>
>I always thought the physcological implications of his work is more interesting. For example, because you have only your set of defined logic, its impossible for you to tell wether or not you're sane, or recognize your own bad internal logic.
>
>That allows one to fool themselves into believing something so much that they can accept something as complete truth when its not even testable. Interesting ideas...

A lot of things in science are not 'testable' and believed anyway. Many ideas are accepted even though they cannot be 'tested', that is, replicated in a laboratory or observed in nature, and ideas do not extend the known into the unkown by wya of a prediction of events or observations yet unseen. While only an occasional problem in physics, it is a constant problem in biology. You should read Stephen Hawkings "A brief History of Time". or perhaps Stephen J Gould's book on Puncuated Equlibrium. Both authors admit where fact leaves off and faith begins. At the bottom of every disciple, Mike, is a set of axioms which CANNOT be proved, but are accepted as true because..... people want to accept them. They like the structure that flow from extending the logic. But, change the value of Cosmological Constant (now called the Compernican Constant) from 1 to 0 or -1, and totally different metrics result. I would wager that most folks do not even understand the 'Big Bang" cosmology.