A Mathematical Proof of God

[Smoke]

You obviously never read Thomas.

A lot of untrue things are "obvious" to you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know you're the first prerson that's mentioned that. Kinda counter-intuitive don't you think?

I'd describe it more as "paradoxical" or "inherently contradictory".

Because I know I'll never learn French, doesn't mean I know French. Because I know Godel's Theorem's truth of falsity is Unknowable doesn't mean I know what it is.

The theorem isn't unknowable, but I agree that you don't seem to know what it is.

Quick summary, science and reason can never make the Universe work, yet it works. That Great Unknowble that makes it work is defined as God, like you say t = time. God is Unknowable and makes the Universe work.

How do you know that whatever makes the universe work is the "unknowable" of Godel's incompleteness theorem?

It doesn't say what will be unknowable, only that in every mathematical system, there will be some things we have to assume axiomatically. This doesn't mean that the particular thing that you want to be unknowable is necessarily so.

 

[Kurt31416]

The theorem isn't unknowable

Ok, is it true or false? Spit it out.

How do you know that whatever makes the universe work is the "unknowable" of Godel's incompleteness theorem?

Did you even read post 1? The famous scientists/mathematicians in their peer reviewed papers say the Universe is Eternally Unknowable to Science, because of Godel. In particular they did the math for the Quantum Theory.

It doesn't say what will be unknowable, only that in every mathematical system, there will be some things we have to assume axiomatically. This doesn't mean that the particular thing that you want to be unknowable is necessarily so.

False, the famous scientists/mathematicians in post 1 proved that even if you take an infinite number of things on pure faith, even with an infinite number of axioms, the Universe is still Unknowable. Everyone knows it's unknowable if there's only a finite number of things taken on pure faith, a finite number of axioms.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The theorem isn't unknowable

Ok, is it true or false? Spit it out.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is true, AFAICT.

How do you know that whatever makes the universe work is the "unknowable" of Godel's incompleteness theorem?

Did you even read post 1? The famous scientists/mathematicians in their peer reviewed papers say the Universe is Eternally Unknowable to Science, because of Godel. In particular they did the math for the Quantum Theory.

I did read your first post. I don't think those quotes say what you think they do.

It doesn't say what will be unknowable, only that in every mathematical system, there will be some things we have to assume axiomatically. This doesn't mean that the particular thing that you want to be unknowable is necessarily so.

False, the famous scientists/mathematicians in post 1 proved that even if you take an infinite number of things on pure faith, even with an infinite number of axioms, the Universe is still Unknowable. Everyone knows it's unknowable if there's only a finite number of things taken on pure faith, a finite number of axioms.

What do you think "the Universe is still Unknowable" actually means? Large parts of the universe are known to us in the normal way, and even more parts will become known in future. Godel's point was that all knowledge must have some assumptions of unknown things at its foundation. It certainly doesn't mean we can't try to find out all we can about the original cause of the universe (if one exists); it just means that mathematical and logical concepts, and therefore all knowledge, are contingent on things we can't rigorously prove.

 

[Kurt31416]

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is true,

False.

 

[Kurt31416]

Godel's Theorem is like saying

"This sentence is a lie"

in math.

Is is true or false?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You need to familiarize yourself with what exactly a formal logical system is.

 

[Kurt31416]

You need to familiarize yourself with what exactly a formal logical system is.

Is that so. What do you think it is?

 

[Fortunato]

Science explains a lot.

All in an approximate, occasionally false way. The Uncertainty Principle alone demonstrates that.

It means it explains some things in a rough approximate way, and some things it can never ever explain at all, not because it hasn't got to them yet, it will never be able to get to them, forever and ever.

I don't get my understanding of math from Wikipedia. Ain't no theories in axiomatic systems. All math is axiomatic systems.

We're probably getting a bit off topic on this point. I think you and I have very different understandings of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, Quantum Mechanics, and math. The Incompleteness Theorem just says that given a consistent logical system, there exists one statement which is true within the system, but which cannot be proven within it. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle showed that you cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle beyond a certain precision, this precision is not an artifact of your measuring device, but rather a natural limit of the universe. Based on this, I agree with you that science can only know things in an aproximate way, but it is not correct to say that this is, as you state it, an "occasionally false way". So we don't argue over differing definitions, where do you get your understanding of math? I understand a theory in math to be a set of axioms (statements made without proof) and theorems (statements ultimately derived from axioms).

What are you talking about? I never said that I worshiped science.

I don't think I accused you of it.

Where were you a little while ago. It was something you put on the altar of truth and worship.

What am I to infer from the above statement then?

That which we can never ever know, that makes the Universe Work, is defined as God. Gotta stress it's not a god of the gaps or they'll harp on that, and need to point out making the Universe work, or they'll claim you never said that.

God is the Great Unknowable that makes the Universe work. He makes the knowable and unknowable work. Other than that, he is Unknowable. Is Godel's Theorem God more than a tree in the forest? It's Unknowable.

You are free to believe this, but these statements are neither proven nor implied by the Incompleteness Theorem or Quantum Mechanics. Your proof hinges on this one statement:

If we choose to define the Father as partly being that Unknowable, we have proved the Father with formal math.

How are words like "If we choose to define" in any way proof? Imagine a courtroom where the defendant's lawyer finishes up his case by telling the judge, "There, I have conclusively proven the defendants innocence. Now if we choose to define God as partly being that innocence, then we have also proved that God exists!" How could anyone unashamedly make such a claim and call it proof?

*edit* I should clarify that I don't care whether you believe the Great Unknowable is God or not. You are entitled to believe what you want, it really doesn't matter to me. What I'm concerned about is your claim that you've mathematically proven God, which you most definitely have not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Godel's Theorem is like saying

"This sentence is a lie"

in math.

Is is true or false?

Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem basically amounts to saying that when you break down a proof to its most fundamental component parts, any formal proof will have to be based on something that has to be accepted axiomatically... i.e. taken as true without being proven so. It doesn't say what you have to accept as an axiom, only that you have to accept something as one.

IOW, say you have theorem A that depends on relationships B and C. You can use B to "prove" C and C to "prove" B, but you can't simultaneously prove both B and C without relying on either. What you'd have to do is assume either B or C as true, which then lets you solve the whole system. However, Godel has nothing to say about whether your axiom should be B or C.

So... I stand by what I said: it's true, AFAICT ("as far as I can tell", in case you didn't recognize the acronym). However, this is with the caveat that because Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem appears to be true, my certainty of it being true can't be 100%.

That's a far cry from saying that it's certainly false.

 

[Kurt31416]

We're probably getting a bit off topic on this point. I think you and I have very different understandings of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, Quantum Mechanics, and math. The Incompleteness Theorem just says that given a consistent logical system, there exists one statement which is true within the system, but which cannot be proven within it. .

Oh no, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem IS proved, the proof is Godel's Proof.

And it's no more true than the statement, "This sentence is a lie." If it's true, it's false, and therefore not true. That would be the inconsistant option, not the incomplete one.

 

[Kurt31416]

Hi Fortunato,

When I said,

"Where were you a little while ago. It was something you put on the altar of truth and worship."

I was saying others worship science, and it was a welcome change to talk to someone that can do the science that doesn't worship it.

Rick

 

[Kurt31416]

Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem basically amounts to saying that when you break down a proof to its most fundamental component parts, any formal proof will have to be based on something that has to be accepted axiomatically... i.e. taken as true without being proven so. It doesn't say what you have to accept as an axiom, only that you have to accept something as one.

False, it says in any axiomatic system that there will always be an infinite number of statements that you can't prove true or false. Nothing to do with axiomatic systems having axioms. That axiomatic systems need axioms wasn't big news in 1931.

 

[Fortunato]

Hi Fortunato,

When I said,

"Where were you a little while ago. It was something you put on the altar of truth and worship."

I was saying others worship science, and it was a welcome change to talk to someone that can do the science that doesn't worship it.

Rick

Thanks! I try my best to understand both sides of the argument and listen to what the person on the other side of the connection is trying to say. I find it's way too easy to misconstrue what other peoples intentions are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That axiomatic systems need axioms wasn't big news in 1931.

The fact that at least some of what we now accept axiomatically can never, ever be proven true was big news, as were the facts that all knowledge is contingent on things we can't ever objectively prove, and that human knowledge has intrinsic limits.

 

[Fortunato]

Oh no, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem IS proved, the proof is Godel's Proof.

And it's no more true than the statement, "This sentence is a lie." If it's true, it's false, and therefore not true. That would be the inconsistant option, not the incomplete one.

Kurt, maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not arguing about whether or not Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is true (I believe it's been conclusively proven that it is true). What I was describing was what his theorem actually states, which is:
For any consistent (i.e. doesn't allow any non-contradictory statements) and sufficiently powerful system (i.e. can prove simple arithmetical statements), there exists at least one statement which is true within the system, but which cannot be proven within that system.

In lay-mans terms, there are mathematical theorems which are true but unprovable.

 

[Kurt31416]

The fact that at least some of what we now accept axiomatically can never, ever be proven true was big news, as were the facts that all knowledge is contingent on things we can't ever objectively prove, and that human knowledge has intrinsic limits.

Testify brother.

 

[Kurt31416]

Kurt, maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not arguing about whether or not Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is true (I believe it's been conclusively proven that it is true). What I was describing was what his theorem actually states, which is:
For any consistent (i.e. doesn't allow any non-contradictory statements) and sufficiently powerful system (i.e. can prove simple arithmetical statements), there exists at least one statement which is true within the system, but which cannot be proven within that system.

In lay-mans terms, there are mathematical theorems which are true but unprovable.

That's not what happened the way I understand it. Godel, by assigning numbers to the actual mathematical symbols did a formal proof of a statement,(Godel's Proof) making it a Theorem, (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.) First thing out of the block is the Proof. Problem is what it proved is a mathematical Theorem that says "I am lying." Unknowable if it's true or false.

Granted your version is probably equivalent, it does soung familiar.

 

[ghunter1]

There are epeople on this forum that understand quatum theory! I am impressed. So the uncertainty principle-could it be that pi will always be unknown(exactly) therefore position and speed can therefore be known exactly and so the uncertainty isn't uncertain?

 

[ghunter1]

OK lets hear it, the simplified version please - I almost fell saleep reading wikipedia.