It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Metaverse and Godel's Theorem

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem along with his Ontological Proof shows that a Metaverse exists and it takes a metalanguage in order to find truths about any system.

In other words, you need something outside of the system you're talking about and that's not apart of the system in order to find out truths about the system. Formally it says:

“Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”

This applies to any system like you or me or the universe itself and God which leads to Godel's Ontological Proof which I will get into later.

This was a huge blow to Scientist and Mathematicians who wanted to prove their theorems and find a theory of everything. What Godel showed was, this is impossible.

When you look at science for instance, the theories aren't explained by the equations in the theories but insights that comes through things like imagination and intuition about the theories. Einstein said this:

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

This points directly to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. You need a metalanguage to describe the truths about a system and these truths are unprovable and not found within the system you're studying.

We're still having debates about time. This is because the truth about time lies in the infinite metaverse so we will always debate it's nature.

With Gravity, Einstein gave us some insights but again, the debate rages on about gravitons, is gravity fundamental or emergent and more. Again, Godel tells us we will never find the answer.

This is because there will always be metalanguage that's bigger than the system you're studying that will give you truths about that system that you can never find out will studying the system itself.

It's easy to see how this points to God.

This isn't the God of any religion but more so points to Yin/Yang Tao or Oneness that's encapsulates all things.

In the Metaverse there would be infinite intelligence, infinite good and infinite evil. Infinite happiness and infinite sadness. This Metaverse would be real/unreal and unknowable.

The infinities, within infinities, within infinities, would be different manifestations of the Metaverse. Here's a good video:



So, you or I have what's called a contingent existence. We're here because our Parents had sex and they're here because their Parents had sex and so on and so forth. Properties in the Metaverse have a necessary existence. They're infinite and uncaused.

When you look at Spider Man, he has a contingent existence as a super hero because his powers originated by being bitten by a spider but heroism is a property in the Metaverse that manifests in these infinities within infinities and we're experience a contingent existence in one of these infinities now.

Godel proved that God and this Metaverse must exist.

The truth of a system can't be explained by anything within that system. It needs something meta or outside of the system. There will always be things about the system that's true but the system itself can't prove.

edit on 3-8-2019 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I find patterns to be a good metalanguage. It helps breaking the perceived reality into a simple form, that can be processed with our still limited brain capacity. If the pattern is simple, yet complex enough to fit most ideas and concepts, it will unlock the meta-verse.
wording the things transmitted by the model is where the problem starts, cause everyone has his own model to interpret reality.



Sincerely No Clue



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Some theories hold , that as we answer each question in order , the questions become exponentially more difficult. The last question may never be answered.



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 03:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoClue
a reply to: neoholographic

I find patterns to be a good metalanguage. It helps breaking the perceived reality into a simple form, that can be processed with our still limited brain capacity. If the pattern is simple, yet complex enough to fit most ideas and concepts, it will unlock the meta-verse.
wording the things transmitted by the model is where the problem starts, cause everyone has his own model to interpret reality.



Sincerely No Clue





Exactly, the Metaverse can also be communicated through patterns.

I know a girl who wouldn't go out with a guy because she just felt something was wrong with him. She would say I don't know what it is but something isn't right. He was arrested for attempted rape and kidnapping and everyone said, they didn't see it coming but she did.

Again, the Metaverse is self evident. Our lives our filled with truths and insights about the universe that we can't explain with any equation or observation.

Maybe she saw a pattern nobody else saw and that's the way the Metaverse communicated with her and she saw a truth nobody else saw.

Einstein said:

When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come close to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.

and

“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am… [but] I would have been surprised if I had been wrong."

“I never came upon any of my discoveries through the process of rational thinking.”

The Metaverse is infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite experiences that manifest in finite ways in these infinities within infinities that give us our contingent existence.
edit on 3-8-2019 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Question:
Was Gödel inspired or influenced by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? They were about two years apart, was there even a connection between the two?

Here's David Berlinski's take on Gödel... okay, let's go eat!



edit on 09 11 2015 by MaxTamesSiva because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: neoholographic

Question:
Was Gödel inspired or influenced by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? They were about two years apart, was there even a connection between the two?

Here's David Berlinski's take on Gödel... okay, let's go eat!




I believe there's a connection between the two and so did Hawking. Here's part of a lecture from Hawking called Godel and the End of the Universe. In it he admits that Godel make have destroyed his quest for a theory of everything and connections between Godel and Quantum Mechanics.


Godel's theorem is proved using statements that refer to themselves. Such statements can lead to paradoxes. An example is, this statement is false. If the statement is true, it is false. And if the statement is false, it is true. Another example is, the barber of Corfu shaves every man who does not shave himself. Who shaves the barber? If he shaves himself, then he doesn't, and if he doesn't, then he does. Godel went to great lengths to avoid such paradoxes by carefully distinguishing between mathematics, like 2+2 =4, and meta mathematics, or statements about mathematics, such as mathematics is cool, or mathematics is consistent. That is why his paper is so difficult to read. But the idea is quite simple. First Godel showed that each mathematical formula, like 2+2=4, can be given a unique number, the Godel number. The Godel number of 2+2=4, is *. Second, the meta mathematical statement, the sequence of formulas A, is a proof of the formula B, can be expressed as an arithmetical relation between the Godel numbers for A- and B. Thus meta mathematics can be mapped into arithmetic, though I'm not sure how you translate the meta mathematical statement, 'mathematics is cool'. Third and last, consider the self referring Godel statement, G. This is, the statement G can not be demonstrated from the axioms of mathematics. Suppose that G could be demonstrated. Then the axioms must be inconsistent because one could both demonstrate G and show that it can not be demonstrated. On the other hand, if G can't be demonstrated, then G is true. By the mapping into numbers, it corresponds to a true relation between numbers, but one which can not be deduced from the axioms. Thus mathematics is either inconsistent or incomplete. The smart money is on incomplete.

What is the relation between Godel’s theorem and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe in terms of a finite number of principles? One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted. One example might be the Goldbach conjecture. Given an even number of wood blocks, can you always divide them into two piles, each of which can not be arranged in a rectangle? That is, it contains a prime number of blocks.

Although this is incompleteness of sort, it is not the kind of unpredictability I mean. Given a specific number of blocks, one can determine with a finite number of trials whether they can be divided into two primes. But I think that quantum theory and gravity together, introduces a new element into the discussion that wasn't present with classical Newtonian theory. In the standard positivist approach to the philosophy of science, physical theories live rent free in a Platonic heaven of ideal mathematical models. That is, a model can be arbitrarily detailed and can contain an arbitrary amount of information without affecting the universes they describe. But we are not angels, who view the universe from the outside. Instead, we and our models are both part of the universe we are describing. Thus a physical theory is self referencing, like in Godel’s theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent or incomplete. The theories we have so far are both inconsistent and incomplete.


www.hawking.org.uk...

When you think of QM, you see incompleteness because of probability. You see yin and yang or spin up/spin down. A quantum system is in a superposition of both states until measured.

So QM is the perfect reflection of Incompleteness or Yin and Yang. A quantum system can only be reduced to a bit of uncertainty or a 1 and 0. It can never be in one state or the other before measurement. So you have a 1 and o, spin up and spin down, light or dark, good or evil and happy or sad.

Welcome to the Metaverse!



posted on Aug, 3 2019 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Ain't it beautiful how everything has converged?
Science, spirituality, philosophy, math, and QM: Are we not living in a wonderful time of grand convergence?

For me: everything converged into nothingness, revealing that nothing is our reality, and the world of things emanates out of nothingness.

And of course: it's unprovable, and unfortunately irritates many folks.
You know the refrain: "show me evidence, or it's BS".
But that doesn't quite stand-up to GIT, (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem), does it?

What about us having ..."...contingent existence..."... ?
Does that stand-up-to, or escape GIT?



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Nice thread, thanks for reminding us in what will, for some, feel like a timely synchronous reminder of things one used to know, yet which had 'fallen beyond the bounds of the system' due to distraction in the new media age..



posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 05:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Nice thread, thanks for reminding us in what will, for some, feel like a timely synchronous reminder of things one used to know, yet which had 'fallen beyond the bounds of the system' due to distraction in the new media age..


Thanks and Godel's Theorem and Ontological Proof is more profound than any scientific theory we have. It tells us about the true nature of reality. It tells us it's infinite, unknowable yet has a necessary existence.



posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: neoholographic

Ain't it beautiful how everything has converged?
Science, spirituality, philosophy, math, and QM: Are we not living in a wonderful time of grand convergence?

For me: everything converged into nothingness, revealing that nothing is our reality, and the world of things emanates out of nothingness.

And of course: it's unprovable, and unfortunately irritates many folks.
You know the refrain: "show me evidence, or it's BS".
But that doesn't quite stand-up to GIT, (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem), does it?

What about us having ..."...contingent existence..."... ?
Does that stand-up-to, or escape GIT?


Exactly,

When people say show me the evidence, Godel tells us there will never be evidence or a theory of everything that will be complete. It will always have to appeal to a meta truth that's unprovable and outside of the system itself.

You can think of a circle that surrounds the biggest universe you can think of but there will always be a metaverse outside of that universe where you have unprovable truths that's needed to know about the systems inside of the circle.

If you look at Science today, it's like the more we know, the more we don't know. It's exactly what Godel said.

A scientist works largely by intuition. Given enough experience, a scientist examining a problem can leap to an intuition as to what the solution ‘should look like.’ ... Science is ultimately based on insight, not logic. — Guy Consolmagno

All great achievements in science start from intuitive knowledge, namely, in axioms, from which deductions are then made. … Intuition is the necessary condition for the discovery of such axioms. — Albert Einstein

All human knowledge begins with intuitions, proceeds from thence to concepts, and ends with ideas. — Immanuel Kant

As scientists the two men were contrasting types—Einstein all calculation, Rutherford all experiment ... There was no doubt that as an experimenter Rutherford was a genius, one of the greatest. He worked by intuition and everything he touched turned to gold. He had a sixth sense. (Reminiscence comparing his friend, Ernest Rutherford, with Albert Einstein, whom he also knew.) — Chaim Weizmann

I’m supposed to be a scientific person but I use intuition more than logic in making basic decisions. — Seymour R. Cray

Knowledge is necessary too. A child with great intuition could not grow up to become something worthwhile in life without some knowledge. However there comes a point in everyone’s life where only intuition can make the leap ahead, without knowing precisely how. — Albert Einstein

This is Godel.

We need intuition, imagination, fantasy, daydreams, gut feelings and more to interact with the infinite metaverse. This is why Godel proved the existence of God.

He didn't prove a God of any particular religion.

He showed that infinite goodness or what he called positive attributes exists and has a necessary existence. Just like infinite evil, infinite happiness, infinite sadness, infinite intelligence, infinite heroism and more.

Beings with a contingent existence can't grasp the infinite so we re-normalize it so to speak by putting it in finite language we can understand. So infinite goodness becomes God and infinite evil becomes Satan.

Infinite heroism is seen in Superheroes to the guy that runs into a burning building to try and save people.

We can't prove these things with any scientific theory but they are manifest in profound ways within contingent systems like universes and people. The infinite gives rise to finite experiences. This is what Godel showed us in his incompleteness theorem and ontological proof.



new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join