The fact that truth transcends theoremhood , in any given formal system, is called "incompleteness" of that system .
Douglas R. Hofstadter: Gödel, Escher, Bach (1999) p. 86
What would there be that is not bizarre?
It seems we both agree that reductionist science only goes so far. How about a few more steps of progress using holistic approaches as advocated by Monica Anderson and others. Are there others? Who?
You think that's bizarre? I'll show you bizarre...
A fact of math is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem which proves things like this:
...and...
That appears to be more technical than is relevant to this thread, but its the core subject which all bizarreness comes from, usually indirectly.
Everything can be divided into 3 groups. We don't know which things go in which of the 3 groups, but there is some true grouping of them that way. Such uncertainty is predicted byhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem
The 3 groups are:
(1) Things that are completely random. They are not influenced or changed by anything. They are the definition of everything thats not logic.
(2) Things that are completely logical. Everything that can be completely known based on the things it depends on.
(3) Combinations of (1) and (2) that are not completely (1) and are not completely (2).
(3) is a subset of the combination of (1) and (2).
At any 1 observation, (1) is a subset of (2), but (1) is a different subset of (2) each time its observed.
Therefore all possible things are a subset of (2) in 1 way or another.
Therefore the entire universe (including everything that was, is, and will be) is a subset of (2) in 1 way or another.
(2) is proven to be accurately described byhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem
Therefore, whatever subset of (2) the universe is (subset of all possible things), the universe is accurately described byhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem
Therefore those things I quoted above apply to the universe.
Therefore, as Douglas Adams wrote, and I mean this in the most abstract and indirect way...
Douglas Adams was obviously writing about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem because of this quote:
Its a fictional book, but theres parts of it that he meant as real philosophy questions. If you really want bizarre... Figure out why Douglas Adams wrote as fiction what Max Tegmark more recently wrote as serious physics research papers.
Language is bizarre, but so is everything else, because logically it has to be.