Gödel

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Post Reply
Psychologist
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:55 am
Diet: Pescetarian

Gödel

Post by Psychologist »

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

I would like to go further into this. Currently I am far beyond any elaborated understanding.

But I like the idea to follow a logically constructed path.

It is not that I want to have "proved" the existence of G*d in a religious meaning. But I think, if G*d exists, he would like, too, that his creatures use their G*d-given brain cells! :)

So, can anyone help me to start with Gödel?

Btw: I would LOVE to be a mathematician! For me it is the most asthetic science.

Emm
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Gödel

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Psychologist wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del ... ical_proof

I would like to go further into this. Currently I am far beyond any elaborated understanding.
I can help you understand it if you want.
Psychologist wrote:I would LOVE to be a mathematician! For me it is the most asthetic science.
Mathematicians aren't usually scientists, although most scientists need to be mathematicians to some degree. Mathematics is how you make sense of science, and ensure your results have some degree of reliability, through statistics. But pure mathematics isn't a science, and doesn't have anything to do with the scientific method. It's a field of philosophy that deals in proofs and absolutes through mathematical abstraction, and not in empirical matters.

It's important to understand that if you're interested in mathematics.

Interestingly, Mathematicians, while in a subset of philosophy, tend to be profoundly BAD at philosophy proper, because they have come up with a very limited view of things. They think language can be understood like numbers, and see things in an overly simplistic and often arrogant way.

They see the world too simply, and so tend to endeavor to prove something very simple, but then mistakenly apply that proof to something it can't be applied to, making enormous unfounded leaps from mathematics to linguistic constructs without a notion of semantics.

In mathematics, 1 = 1, and that's the whole of it.

In language, God = God is NOT true, because the definition is not and never has been clear or coherent. You can't equivocate one person's notion of 'God' to another's.

This is, in short, why no mathematician is likely to ever produce anything worthwhile in philosophy. They make too many assumptions, and they refuse to clearly define their terms because they presume it to be obvious.

Scientists are inclined to the opposite problem, being unwilling to commit to things, and being unnecessarily uncertain about everything to the point they have trouble constructing philosophical proofs at all for fear of seeming arrogant.


A real philosopher will tend to spend most of his or her time discussing the definition of "God"; that is, talking about what it does, could, or should mean, and why.

It is trivially simple to prove that a god does not exist. It's also trivially simple to prove that a god does exist. ALL depending on the definition of "god" that you use.

So, you see, all of these so called "proofs" are mostly a waste of time, when what really matters is the definition of the "god" is, or should be.


Gödel's definition of a god is asinine -- which it where it starts and stops.

"x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive"

Nonsense.

He may be perfectly happy to think of positive and negative values in mathematics, which have essential traits which break their symmetry, but in reality positive and negative are only defined RELATIVE to certain metrics.

It's a concept Gödel either doesn't understand, or hopes his readers don't understand so he can trick them; giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume it's the former.

Psychologist wrote: But I like the idea to follow a logically constructed path.
Then you need to use a logical and coherent definition of your deity.

Psychologist wrote: So, can anyone help me to start with Gödel?
It starts and stops at his incoherent definition and ambiguous use of language- his failure to understand that abstract mathematics do not map directly to words.
If you understand why his definition of god is incoherent, then you understand why his proof fails from the get-go.

I can help you understand the rest of it if you really want... but it's kind of a waste of time, since the first step is already a failure.
It only takes one wrong step in a proof to be defeated.


Interestingly, Gödel may have inadvertently constructed the best proof against the traditional omniscient god that has ever been formulated:

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

The argument goes that either a god's knowledge is complete and inconsistent, or consistent and incomplete - neither qualify for omniscience.
Psychologist
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:55 am
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Gödel

Post by Psychologist »

Thanks again. :)

Today I learned, that Gödel didn´t want to proof the existence of G*d.

He wanted to show that an ontological proof of the existence of a god within modern logical standards is possible.

His conclusions are bades on axioms , what is not unusual.

If you use free axioms, so his statement, you can proof anything in a logical (or pseudological) way.

So my conclusion is that Gödel more likely wanted to show the weakness of an axiomatic reasoned evidence.


More to it later. Thanks! :)

Emm
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Gödel

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Psychologist wrote: Today I learned, that Gödel didn´t want to proof the existence of G*d.
He wanted to show that an ontological proof of the existence of a god within modern logical standards is possible.
It's not very clear what he wanted to do. But he didn't show that a proof of "god" was possible.

He attempted to construct a proof of something that is not actually "god"; his definition fails from the get-go.
He also failed to prove it, because some of his axioms are internally contradictory.
Psychologist wrote: So my conclusion is that Gödel more likely wanted to show the weakness of an axiomatic reasoned evidence.
Maybe, but he didn't do that, because the axioms he used were deeply flawed.

Proofs are fine if the logic is actually valid, and the premises are legitimately true. But you also have to look at what is actually proved, and not make leaps or assumptions to something else entirely.
Post Reply