Godel and the only source of truth GOD

a reply to: neoholographic

Great post. That was the truth.

originally posted by: neoholographic
The Bible tells us the way to truth is through Christ:

John 13:4 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I take Him at His word.

If God is your destination, this is the spiritual reality you must have, or you simply will not get there. You must be like Christ to get to God; no matter how long it takes or how many detours you take along the way. That is the truth. You must be like him, or you will never see God. Like a pyramid or black hole, that's the path to our doorway through this truth and on to the next.

We will all come to realize this eventually.

"Meanwhile, somewhere on the interwebs, someone was wrong... must comment!" (/s)

In my humble misguided understanding, what I got from Gödel was the futility of argument. Every Logic System is built on a set of unprovable Axioms (and Production Rules to combine said axioms, and statements built upon them, into new statements, bla, bla bla...). The Logic System is implicitly dependent upon the Axioms, but the Axioms are independent of the Logic System (ie; one-way street of dependency). The Axioms are things which are taken to be true, but which cannot be proved to be true within any Logic System which is built upon them.

IF you agree with someone else as to the logic system to be used (implicitly thus agreeing on what axioms are to be unprovably accepted as true), THEN you can have a constructive discussion ("argument") in which you either (a) share new results, or (b) collectively attempt to derive further results WITHIN THE LOGIC SYSTEM.

The preceding paragraph is roughly what Mathematicians/Scientists do when they publish papers, or critique one anothers' papers, or collaborate. This is also what Theologians do when they argue about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". In either case, all parties involved are working WITHIN A LOGIC SYSTEM accepted by their peers: they share an agreed-upon set of axioms with the people whom they are "arguing" or discoursing.

So for the sake of argument:
Mathematicians might start with axioms [ zero, equals, plus_one ].
Physicists might start with axioms [ space_time, matter_energy, charge, spin, fields_particles ].
Theologians might start with axioms [ omnipotent_deity, holy_texts_contain_no_errors ].

In these hypothetical cases:
Mathematicians cannot prove zero, they just have to accept it as an Article of Faith. But if they accept it, then a Logic System can be built atop it, potentially leading to new and exciting ideas. They can argue about these new ideas IN THIS LOGIC SYSTEM with other Mathematicians who have also bought into this Logic System.
Theologians cannot prove their deity exists, as it is an Axiom, an Article of Faith upon which an internally consistent Logic System can be built. They can argue constructively with other Theologians within their Logic System... etc.

What is an absolute waste of time, is for a Physicist to argue from Physics Logic with a Theologian about Theological Logic. The systems are orthogonal, their logical spaces do not overlap. Although a Physicist and a Theologian might be under the apprehension that both of their Logic Systems describe the same Universe (ie; the world we are all sitting in), this is not the case. Each Logic System can only describe itself. (This is like the word "red" describes a particular color, but it is NOT that color, it is just an idea that we have paired up with the phenomenon that we perceive as the color red.) (The numeral 2 is NOT the number 2... these are separate ideas we have set up a 1:1 correspondence so that we can operate within a particular logic system).

So my biggest peeve, is when highly learned people get together to debate Creationism, or Atheism, or some other hot-button topic, with one "religious person" and one "scientific person". This annoys me to no end, because all of these "highly learned" people should understand enough Gödel and Logic to know that they are talking ACROSS DIFFERENT LOGIC SYSTEMS. They might just as well hold the debate with one person speaking Swahili while the other spoke Chukchi -- there is no overlap, there is no common ground. Producing or proving a statement from one Logic into the other is a by definition meaningless. Furthermore, God _IS_ the primary axiom of most Theologies, so no amount of Theological pontification can prove an Axiom of that Logic System within that Logic System.

"Now that I have righted all misconceptions and errors of perception on the interwebs, I can rest now that my work here is done." (/s)

originally posted by: stelth2
a reply to: neoholographic

Great post. That was the truth.

Thanks for checking it out!

originally posted by: Romeopsi
a reply to: neoholographic

Listening to Roger Penrose is fascinating. Basically, you’re saying 8+6=14-3=11 is true because we understand the system of arithmetic but there’s nothing within that system that’s provable. So, it’s our understanding of the formal system of arithmetic that says it’s true but the system itself is unprovable. Is this what you’re saying? If so, that’s pretty mind blowing as Penrose said.

Yes and Penrose really captures this. Let me give you another example.

Everything that's contingent and described by mathematics can't explain it's existence without a cause. There's truth outside of the system that explains the existence of the system. You can draw a circle around anything in the universe as well as the universe itself to illustrate this.

If I draw a circle around a house, that house can't explain it's existence within that circle. You have to go outside of that circle to explain the truth of the house. Where did the materials to build the house come from? Who drove the materials to where the house was built?

You then draw a circle around the truck that bought the materials there. You then have to go outside of the truck to who built the truck and where did he buy the truck from.

It's the same with the universe. The universe is unprovable within itself so Scientist are trying to go outside of the universe to explain the existence of the universe.

So they're saying in every black hole there may be a universe. The universe is the result of a black hole collapsing in a higher dimension, 10^500 false vacua of string theory and more.

Godel strikes again!

So the one thing that's complete and not described by mathematics is conscious experience. It's our understanding and awareness. So this is what caused our contingent and unprovable universe to come into existence. Without this, you have an infinite regression of contigent unprovable systems which is illogical.

See, it's not just another contingent system then another contingent system ad infinitum. It's our metaphysical understanding of say, a system of arithmetic that says it's true. Truth isn't found in the system itself and this applies to an equation or the universe itself.

There's no truth in a car or the parts of a car. The truth of a car is in our understanding of how the parts come together to make what we call a car. The design of the car can be described by mathematics so it falls victim to Godel's theorem.

So the only source of truth is God. The only source of truth is metaphysical. Systems described by mathematics are incomplete and unprovable within the system itself. There's no truth in math or physics. The only truth is our understanding of these systems. The systems themselves are unprovable.

originally posted by: neoholographic
The universe is unprovable within itself so Scientist are trying to go outside of the universe to explain the existence of the universe.

So are you, and you call it god, specifically your god.

According to the theory you are proposing, nothing here can prove the truth. Unfortunately, you are here and so is the bible so, according to your theory, you haven't proven anything.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

So that should show that we are still figuring out how math works. And the same thing with physics. Philosophy is the conversation between what we know and what we do not understand.

God need not apply to the argument! The question is incomplete!

Colossians 2:8-10

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

a reply to: daskakik

According to the theory you are proposing, nothing here can prove the truth. Unfortunately, you are here and so is the bible so, according to your theory, you haven't proven anything.

He's already told you that. Only God's spirit can provide understanding. No man is capable of providing it for anyone.

a reply to: 19Bones79

Interesting. Which dimension(s) are you accessing to make such a bold assertion?

How does that dimension differ from the one where imagination comes from and how do you separate the two?

God's not limited to time and space. He can access us and He claims to do so through His Spirit. Everything imagined has started through Him. However, He will not allow us all understanding of everything in this world or the universe because He knows that we would corrupt it worse than we already have. He'll allow us to reach a certain point of knowledge and corruption and then He's going to pull the plug to show us that we needed Him all along. The program is complete and has already been written.

a reply to: Deetermined

So the grand finale is where he pops into our existence and says:

"See?!? You couldn't do this without me. In your face humans. Don't worry about the mess, I'm moving you to a different location.

Now everyone line up behind the Jews. They get first dibs on the housing up there because well, it's true there's just something about them that the rest of you don't quite have.

Wow, that played out exactly how I thought it would, but you didn't know because I limited your understanding hah!

That was fun. Wasn't it fun? I think I've outdone myself. How great am I huh? Now you get to worship me for all eternity. Kumba yah feel the love you corrupted little monkeys!

Oh yah... sorry no pets allowed but you would be surprised how many rapists and murderers repented right before they died. Mr Jones, your wife was secretly agnostic when she was murdered but you're going to share a mansion with her rapist/murderer who repented and the two of you can share your memories of her so at least there's that.

As for those of you who died in your rebellious teenage phase, sorry not sorry. Stupid hormones. Lol. The roof, the roof, you know... the thing!

Now follow me as I leave a trail of dignity and holiness all the way to kingdom come.


One more thing. Don't tell any Jesus jokes in heaven my son's still super salty about how I offed him in favor of you unworthy lot and who could blame him? His message didn't do squat in the grand scheme of things except getting adopted by the largest pedophile network on earth so he basically died for nothing. And technically it was a 3 day hiatus, but he doesn't want to hear about it. Okay?

Start singing all things bright and beautiful I want to hear you guys all the way at the back!

Muslims, stop banging your heads you don't have to do that anymore hahaha!

Onward, Ho! "


More or less?

a reply to: trombleforth

So my biggest peeve, is when highly learned people get together to debate Creationism, or Atheism, or some other hot-button topic, with one "religious person" and one "scientific person". This annoys me to no end, because all of these "highly learned" people should understand enough Gödel and Logic to know that they are talking ACROSS DIFFERENT LOGIC SYSTEMS. They might just as well hold the debate with one person speaking Swahili while the other spoke Chukchi -- there is no overlap, there is no common ground. Producing or proving a statement from one Logic into the other is a by definition meaningless. Furthermore, God _IS_ the primary axiom of most Theologies, so no amount of Theological pontification can prove an Axiom of that Logic System within that Logic System.

"Now that I have righted all misconceptions and errors of perception on the interwebs, I can rest now that my work here is done."

A thinker's and seeker's work are never done.

There most certainly is overlap within the logic of philosophy, metaphysics, science and religion for some people, which shows that misconceptions and errors of perception on the interwebs is just that, personal misconceptions and errors of perceptions for some not all. Isn't it all a form of feeding the soul?

Spinoza's God:

Baruch Spinoza is one of the world’s most influential philosophers, his views of metaphysics being hotly debated to this day. Spinoza proposed that God is not a personal manifestation, not one being, but rather a manifestation of everything that’s harmonious. In a way, God is Nature.

But this wasn’t a religious view. Instead of being a conscious being, God is a manifestation of the beauty of the Universe. This is the so-called Spinoza’s God.

“I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.”

'Einstein's cosmic religion"

In 1930, Einstein published one of the most discussed essays of the time. In The New York Times Magazine, he discussed his cosmic religion. He declared himself averse to the idea of heaven and hell, but he also discussed the connection between religion and science. He asserted that “even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other” there are “strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies.” Perhaps most intriguingly, he states that in the way he sees things, there can be no conflict between science and religion. The two are distinct, but sometimes intertwined.

“A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. [..] Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. [..] In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be.”

www.zmescience.com...

Big Bang theory of cosmology devised by Catholic priest -

Q: When was the observatory created?

A: Its roots go back to Pope Gregory XIII's reform of the calendar in the 16th century, which needed input from astronomers. But it was in the 1890s that Leo XIII founded the institution, to show that science and religion were not opposed to one another, unlike the popular impression given by the Galileo affair. It was also intended to underline the Vatican's status as an independent country. So its creation came down to a little bit of politics and a little bit of church teaching.

You have to remember that the geneticist Gregor Mendel was a monk, while the reigning Big Bang theory of cosmology was devised by a Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître. As scholars, we are open to go wherever the science leads us. Indeed, my job is simply to do good science. We have no agenda beyond that.

Q: Does God get in the way of doing good astronomy?

A: Just the opposite. He is the reason we do astronomy. I would say that is true even if you don't believe in God. We do it first of all because we can, because the universe acts according to laws. That is a religious idea. The Romans, on the other hand, believed in nature gods that intervene according to whim—but if you believe in that you can't be a scientist. Believing in a supernatural god is different.

You also have to believe that the universe is real and not an illusion. You have to believe that the universe is so good that it is worth spending your life studying it, even if you don't become rich or famous. That sense that gets you up every morning is the presence of God.

www.science.org...

a reply to: 19Bones79

Sorry, Bones, your reply speaks volumes about your lack of understanding of what's written.

a reply to: 19Bones79

I can understand why you reject God, but how do you feed your soul now?

Maybe understanding that man has dominion over this Earth and all living things puts the responsibility on us to include us in that dominion?

Maybe understanding this world's nature better, such as non-random natural selection may help understand the cruelty we all face in this reality?

Maybe accepting that the creation of life was and is still not perfect, we are not perfect? Or that we are perfect beings in an imperfect realm? We are, after all, not in the Kingdom of God.

Shooting the messenger is one of humanity’s sillier foibles, and it underlies a good slice of the opposition to evolution that I mentioned in the Introduction. ‘Teach children that they are animals, and they’ll behave like animals.’ Even if it were true that evolution, or the teaching of evolution, encouraged immorality, that would not imply that the theory of evolution was false. It is quite astonishing how many people cannot grasp this simple point of logic. The fallacy is so common it even has a name, the argumentum ad consequentiam – X is true (or false) because of how much I like (or dislike) its consequences.

Addressing one reason for youth's folly -

The third memory is the one we ordinarily think of when we use the word: the memory that resides in the nervous system. By mechanisms that we don’t yet fully understand, our brains retain a store of past experiences to parallel the antibody ‘memory’ of past diseases and the DNA ‘memory’ (for so we can regard it) of ancestral deaths and successes. At its simplest, the third memory works by a trial-and-error process that can be seen as yet another analogy to natural selection.

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started. Before that first step, the sorts of improvement that only natural selection can achieve were impossible. And that means the key step was the arising, by some process as yet unknown, of a self-replicating entity. Self-replication spawns a population of entities, which compete with each other to be replicated. Since no copying process is perfect, the population will inevitably come to contain variety, and if variants exist in a population of replicators those that have what it takes to succeed will come to predominate. This is natural selection, and it could not start until the first self-replicating entity came into existence.

Religious traditions have long identified life with breath. ‘Spirit’ comes from the Latin for ‘breath’. Genesis has God first making Adam and then firing him up by breathing into his nostrils. The Hebrew word for ‘soul’ is ruah or ruach (cognate ruh in Arabic), which also means ‘breath’, ‘wind’, ‘inspiration’.

www.edge.org...

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: neoholographic

The point is, there's no truth within those systems. Our understanding of these systems can say it's true but the systems themselves are unprovable.

So if you're trying to find truth in physics you will be searching forever because there's no truth there. So you would need an Eternal Searcher of the truth.

Scientist say the universe is a hologram, space-time is a quantum error correcting code, there's a universe inside of every black hole, time doesn't exist and more. It's a rabbit hole that doesn't lead to any truth. Truth is only found in our understanding of these systems. It's our metaphysical...

See, that's the solipsistic train to Hell I spoke of.

I'm not buying it.

Metamathematics is a nothing thing really. Just pointing out numbers are a made up way to explain our observations. When did our observation come along anyway? 13.4 billion years into the program? 10 billion for LUCA? But still there are natural integers to observe. Like number of electrons or particle spin.

We're a speck of simplistic organic nothing.

I think biological life is created in the same stellar molecular clouds as stars. For the universe is so amazingly complex organic matter can form from its constituent parts as well. Enough amino acids all over space to validate that too.

Our evolved eyes perceiving the environment and using a made up arithmetic to explain it is a more complex version of a brainless plant using basic chemical reactions to know which way provides the electromagnetism it needs for energy. We just learned to quantify our existence.

It's not that freaking mystifying and overwhelmingly befuddling that I need to have a sophomore year of college existential crisis thinking about the many paradoxes that litter our understanding. I dont need truth. It's overrated. It leads to belligerence and arrogance. Ideas are awesome though. I like when they are wrong and you gain understanding

For argument sake:

Any possible pre-universe architect programmed a system so perfect it doesn't even need to interact with it IMO. Because all that "self-correcting" code keeps on with its hard-indeterministic trajectory.

Not even an acceleration that becomes apparent through red shift needs an update to happen.

So if that god you speak of exists, it pressed "run" and moved on to its next simulated universe.

Let's speak of 3 dimensions and time for a bit...

I do have a possible idea for why the universe is the way it is that removes said architect. It HAS to have coding and parameters. Laws of physics are as important a parameter as any other dimension.

How can "Laws of physics" be a dimension? It's a facet of it's existence. If string or M-theory is correct the laws of physics are what they are in this universe that started with a certain set of conditions because it has to. The dimensional parameter needs to be fulfilled by a collapsed superposition to define it in this universe. Also existing is every other variation of that you can think of in a "multi-verse".

A plane of worlds with same/different histories... initial conditions... Laws of physics....

But that relies on truthless math so I guess you can't count that....

At first man though the earth was special.
Then they thought the solar system was special.
Then they thought the galaxy was special.
Then they thought the visible universe was special..

Who says that can't keep going?

This was the more tedious and comprehensive answer I couldn't motivate myself to type out. Bumping for relevance.

originally posted by: trombleforth
"Meanwhile, somewhere on the interwebs, someone was wrong... must comment!" (/s)

In my humble misguided understanding, what I got from Gödel was the futility of argument. Every Logic System is built on a set of unprovable Axioms (and Production Rules to combine said axioms, and statements built upon them, into new statements, bla, bla bla...). The Logic System is implicitly dependent upon the Axioms, but the Axioms are independent of the Logic System (ie; one-way street of dependency). The Axioms are things which are taken to be true, but which cannot be proved to be true within any Logic System which is built upon them.

IF you agree with someone else as to the logic system to be used (implicitly thus agreeing on what axioms are to be unprovably accepted as true), THEN you can have a constructive discussion ("argument") in which you either (a) share new results, or (b) collectively attempt to derive further results WITHIN THE LOGIC SYSTEM.

What I derive from your comments, your humble misguided understanding, is that truth itself is every bit as illusory as the mathematics being deconstructed and scorned in the OP. Push the envelope far enough and eventually every molecule, every moment, every thought is psychosis and therefore the very concept of existence is invalid.

🤷 😐

originally posted by: Deetermined
He's already told you that. Only God's spirit can provide understanding. No man is capable of providing it for anyone.

He can say it but he can't prove that to be true. That is where the thread goes sideways because they are using a strawman argument that works against their own premise.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: daskakik

According to the theory you are proposing, nothing here can prove the truth. Unfortunately, you are here and so is the bible so, according to your theory, you haven't proven anything.

He's already told you that. Only God's spirit can provide understanding. No man is capable of providing it for anyone.

Exactly!

Very astute observation!

Look at E=MC2. It means energy = mass times the speed of light squared. What Godel shows is that the truth isn't in the equation but our understanding of the equation. Our understanding of the equation led people to understand that there was enormous energy concentrated in matter that could be released and this understanding led to the atomic bomb.

What Godel showed was that our understanding can transcend the equation as Penrose said. The equation itself is unprovable and there's no truth in the equation. The truth is in our transcendent understanding of the equation.

This transcendence is because of the breath of life from God. After the breath of life, Adam named the animals. Adam had understanding.

Here's another example.

The engine of a car can be described mathematically. There's no truth in the math or the parts of the car. The truth comes from our transcendent understanding of how the parts can come together and make an engine.



This goes to Hawking's lecture, Godel and the End of Physics.
yclept.ucdavis.edu...

Why is there an end of physics? It's because there's no truth in the physical.

This is the carnal mind. The Bible says the carnal mind is at enmity with God. Enmity means hostile opposition to God who they claim doesn't exist.

When you base your truth into something where there's not truth, you're stuck in Plato's Cave. You have the breath of life from God to transcend the physical but you choose to remain willfully ignorant and tied to a physical never ending search for truth where it doesn't exist.

originally posted by: neoholographic
When you base your truth into something where there's not truth, you're stuck in Plato's Cave.

You're stuck in the cave along with everyone else.

The silliness of this thread is that you misconstrued something to argue that you can't use what is in the cave to prove what is outside of it and then try to claim you know what is outside based on your interpretation of the shadow puppet show.

Worst yet, you want to act like you have done something special when your argument shoots down your claim as well.

a reply to: neoholographic

The example of drawing a circle around things makes it more clear. I’m now going to have to buy the book when Einstein walked with Godel. I didn’t know anything about Godel and he seems interesting.

The Bible tells us the way to truth is through Christ:

John 13:4 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Psalm 33:4 For the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth.

So if you're leaning unto your understanding in 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time you will never know truth!

John 14.6 (not 13.4) is not a "truth" that can be experienced by a consciousness that just believes in words. That "truth" can only be experienced by negating all that, which exists before that "truth". Even the negation of ones egocentric consciousness that see's itself as distinct from the vine.

We even must accept that the words of the bible are not "truth". Merely a signpost to "truth" of which only a few brave souls will find. The majority will cling to the signpost with all the might, exclaiming I know the truth. They being even more wrong than those that don't believe in God.

It's a lot to ask. To give up all one's pearls for the one great pearl. But if one see's emptiness in all our pearls then there is no giving up of anything. Merely a transition from a segmented self born again into the Unsegmented self. Something the ego wants to achieve but can never attain.

Good luck to you.

a reply to: Deetermined

You missed the point of the post.

Essentially, Occam’s Razor, and bringing in emotions into a conversation about science (i.e., God) keeps the conversation simpler. Think, math, adding another term to an equation, like going from x^2 to x^3 (or, in the case of God, x^infinty), makes everything overly complicated!

The Bible notwithstanding!

From a math standpoint, you can’t just jump from one supposition to another without qualifying it with “if THIS is true, then ..,”

That is formal math. Which is the nexus of this post.