5 ms·
I don't think this is GotG. GotG arguments rely on gaps in scientific knowledge as evidence of the existence of the numinous. This argument isn't about gaps i
by torstenvl 5y ago
I don't think this is GotG.
GotG arguments rely on gaps in scientific knowledge as evidence of the existence of the numinous.
This argument isn't about gaps in scientific knowledge. It's about gaps in scientific knowability. The argument is Godelian in nature.
The set of natural laws is a logical axiomatic system. It cannot be both consistent and complete. Therefore, either the scientific method is fundamentally unreliable for determining the truth, or there are true propositions about reality that cannot be proven within the axiomatic system of the natural laws. In short, unless the natural sciences are inherently bunk, it's a logical necessity that there exists something outside their scope, literally super-natural.
It's an imperfect analogy but I always come back to the idea of CPU privilege rings. We run up against a hard limit of what is observable/provable - a privilege boundary, if you will. That suggests we are in Ring > 0, and therefore there is something in Ring 0.
What's in Ring 0? Nobody knows. Whatever it is, we call it God.
- anomosmarxist 5y agoGodel is important, but his argument's extension to natural laws is a bit of a stretch, also that set of laws isnt really a logical axiomatic set. its more of a hodgepodge, an ever shifting discursive formation by which we are epistemological bound to in as much as we exist by it
- f6v 5y ago> The set of natural laws is a logical axiomatic system. It cannot be both consistent and complete. Can you explain why?
- KMag 5y agoGodel's incompleteness theorem
- jl6 5y agoWhich is a mathematical model and doesn’t necessarily reflect the physical universe, similar to how a perfect sphere doesn’t necessarily reflect the shape of the Earth.
- anomosmarxist 5y agotrue, but also for some math isnt a model but a discoverable part of nature. depends on who is doing the philosophical arguing there. we dont know for sure, ironically because of godel? therefore its a true part of nature?
- KMag 5y agoAs with many such philosophical arguments, I think it's useful to split the word into two definitions, and the philosophical argument vanishes into a semantic argument. There are two definitions for mathematics. One definition is the rules that have existed as long as time itself, and the other definition is the subset of these rules that humans have discovered.
- telmo 5y agoWe were out of oranges. Then Mary left an orange in the kitchen. Then Bob left an orange in the kitchen. Q: How many oranges are there in the kitchen? A: 2. Not so fast. Addition is a mathematical model and doesn't necessarily reflect the physical universe.
- satvikpendem 5y agoYou're not actually refuting the main point based on this story. Yes, mathematics is not necessarily a reflection of the physical universe. It can be, in cases like addition, but it doesn't necessarily need to be. Which was the parent's point.
- telmo 5y ago> mathematics is not necessarily a reflection of the physical universe Nobody knows if it is or not. It could also be that the physical universe is a reflection of mathematical truth. > It can be, in cases like addition, but it doesn't necessarily need to be. Which was the parent's point. Again, nobody knows if it what you claim is true or not. What we do know is that all scientific models are based on math, and if there is something wrong at the foundations of math, then all science is pseudoscience. Gödel's theorems are at the foundations of math. You can't just decide that you are skeptical about that part of math being applicable to physical models but addition is fine. The real problem with Gödel is that it says something that a lot of people don't like to be true.
- BreakfastB0b 5y agoGodel has nothing to do with it. Godel’s Incompleteness is just the math version of the Halting Problem, which is just a fancy version of the classic paradox “This statement is false”. Godel showed that even if you outlaw self referential definitions e.g. “This statement is false”, math is rich enough in complexity to simulate itself and thus end up with self referential paradoxes anyway. It’s not this mystical thing that people make it out to be online.
- jychang 5y agoUndecidability is not tied to only self referential definitions, though.
- BreakfastB0b 5y agoThe only ones I’m aware of are. Can you link me some examples? I’d like to read up on it.
- jychang 5y agohttps://xorshammer.com/2008/09/04/a-geometrically-natural-uncomputable-function/ https://xorshammer.com/2008/09/04/a-geometrically-natural-un...
- BreakfastB0b 5y agoVery cool! Thanks for the link! Got a lot of reading to do. However I do wonder if it’ll turn out that these higher dimensional geometric problems turn out to have the same structure as Godel’s proof. That the higher dimensional geometric structure is complex enough to represent their own foundation. Although now I’m committing the same fallacy I was arguing against i.e. an equivalence between unknowns
- mensetmanusman 5y agoExcellent insight.