Godel and the only source of truth GOD

Kurt Godel dropped a nuclear bomb on mathematics and physics. Mathematicians thought they were on the cusp of showing that their theorems were complete and would lead to all truth. Godel showed that any system described by mathematics is incomplete. It's unprovable within the system itself.

First Incompleteness Theorem: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F."

Second Incompleteness Theorem: "For any consistent system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out, the consistency of F cannot be proved in F itself
Wiki

What Godel's Theorems boil down to is that there's not truth in mathematics or physics itself. The only truth comes from outside of the physical. The only truth comes from our understanding that something is true, not from the thing itself.

Let me say that again:

What Godel's Theorems boil down to is that there's not truth in mathematics or physics itself. The only truth comes from outside of the physical. The only truth comes from our understanding that something is true, not from the thing itself.

The Bible says, Lean not unto thine own understanding.

This is true. Why would you listen to an atheist or a materialist whose understanding is limited to 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time? They know nothing about the nature of reality outside of their limited perception of time.

Modern civilization has been around about 10,000 years, the information age around 60 years and the universe is 93 billion light years across. There's 6 trillion miles in 1 light year so 93 billion 6 trillion miles!! The universe is 13.8 billion years old and we live in a universe that science says is a small part of infinity.

So why would you listen to anything said by an atheist, agnostic or materialist about God, spirit or the nature of reality? Their understanding is limited to this 3rd rock from the sun that's in this sea of infinity. They don't know anything outside of their limited perception of time.

Godel showed that if you derive your truth from math or the physical then you have no real truth. This is because these things are unprovable. We know that they're true because of our understanding. It's our consciousness, our awareness outside of these systems that understand truth.

So this understanding and awareness is not defined by mathematics. It's the only thing in our universe that's aware and complete. So our conscious awareness is the only way to know truth. This is the metaphysical part of us that's connected to God who is the source of all truth!

If your truth is limited to science and what's known in our limited 3 dimensional existence then you're stuck in Plato's Cave. You have no truth because there's no truth in what we call physical systems. The truth is in our understanding of these systems.

Here's Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose talking about Godel's Theorems.


Penrose says it's mind blowing and the understanding or consciousness outside of the system is non computable and therefore complete because it's not described by mathematics.

Here's a lecture from Nobel Prize winner Stephen Hawking called:

Gödel and the End of Physics
yclept.ucdavis.edu...

Why would an atheist and materialist talk about the end of physics? If the physical world is all that exists, then what's the end of physics?

Hawking destroys atheism without realizing he's destroying atheism. There's an end to physics because there's no truth in the physical. Here's an example.

You can't look at water and know what water is. There's no truth in the water itself. Its parts like the molecules, atoms and subatomic particles are not the same as drinking a refreshing bottle of water. So someone years ago could look at the waters and say the sea king made the oceans. They have no truth. Today we can say water is H20 but there's no truth within the science or math that leads us to know that water is H20. We know the truth because of a metaphysical understanding of these things.

If we look at the math and the science behind water, it's unprovable that it's water. So the atheist is just like the man and the sea king if he/she depends on the physical to know the truth. You're just going down an illogical rabbit hole.

THE END OF PHYSICS IS THE TRUTH OF GOD!

Here's a good book called:

When Einstein Walked with Gödel: Excursions to the Edge of Thought
Amazon


Einstein said the highlight of his day at Princeton, was his talks with Godel.

Here's a sentence that captures Godel's Theorems.

I enjoyed the vacation even though it looked like I didn't.

It's a statement that I know is true but it's unprovable. You have to think, this is what Godel was saying to Mathematicians at a time when most of them thought their theorems were provable. It was an atomic bomb dropped in mathematical circles.

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!

a reply to: neoholographic

There's only 4 truths. Your fridge, your bank account, loyalty to your family, and your constitutional rights. Everything else is a game to stroke your ego.

Look at me, I'm so clever and you atheists are so dumb. How incredibly enlightened you are. 😂

a reply to: neoholographic

Excellent post! Starred & Flagged!

I guess this goes over my head but I’ll chime in since religion was brought up.

“Don’t Lean on your own understanding” is another way to say “I know this doesn’t make sense to you but don’t question it”.

A good way to keep people in line.

This is why I dropped religion and chose to work on my spirituality and connection with God on my own. I don’t need a middle man telling me what I feel in my heart and spirit is wrong.

a reply to: neoholographic

From Hawking's talk:

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate
theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I
used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now
glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end,
and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery.
Without it, we would stagnate. Gödel’s theorem ensured there
would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do
the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved.

There will never be an end searching for the truth.

originally posted by: neoholographic
What Godel's Theorems boil down to is that there's not truth in mathematics or physics itself. The only truth comes from outside of the physical. The only truth comes from our understanding that something is true, not from the thing itself.

Nah, you got that wrong.

They are actually only talking about the philosophy of mathematics and therefore just mathematics. They say that math can't provide all truths and that it can't confirm itself, not reality or the physical or whatever you want to call it.

From your link:

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

An interesting read on Paul Dirac's changing idea of God:

Later in life, Dirac's views towards the idea of God were less acerbic. As an author of an article appearing in the May 1963 edition of Scientific American, Dirac wrote:

It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it. You may wonder: Why is nature constructed along these lines? One can only answer that our present knowledge seems to show that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe. Our feeble attempts at mathematics enable us to understand a bit of the universe, and as we proceed to develop higher and higher mathematics we can hope to understand the universe better.[60]

In 1971, at a conference meeting, Dirac expressed his views on the existence of God.[61] Dirac explained that the existence of God could be justified only if an improbable event were to have taken place in the past:

It could be that it is extremely difficult to start life. It might be that it is so difficult to start a life that it has happened only once among all the planets... Let us consider, just as a conjecture, that the chance of life starting when we have got suitable physical conditions is 10−100. I don't have any logical reason for proposing this figure, I just want you to consider it as a possibility. Under those conditions ... it is almost certain that life would not have started. And I feel that under those conditions it will be necessary to assume the existence of a god to start off life. I would like, therefore, to set up this connection between the existence of a god and the physical laws: if physical laws are such that to start off life involves an excessively small chance so that it will not be reasonable to suppose that life would have started just by blind chance, then there must be a god, and such a god would probably be showing his influence in the quantum jumps which are taking place later on. On the other hand, if life can start very easily and does not need any divine influence, then I will say that there is no god.[62]

Dirac did not commit himself to any definite view, but he described the possibilities for scientifically answering the question of God

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: snrb123

Nope, it's a way of saying you're a limited 3 dimensional being who doesn't even know the nature of time so why would you lean unto your own limited understanding to know about God and spiritual things? God is outside of space and time, you're stuck in 3 dimensions of space with access to 1 dimension of time. Your perception of time is an illusion as Einstein said so what can the carnal mind know about the nature of reality?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: snrb123

Nope, it's a way of saying you're a limited 3 dimensional being who doesn't even know the nature of time so why would you lean unto your own limited understanding to know about God and spiritual things? God is outside of space and time, you're stuck in 3 dimensions of space with access to 1 dimension of time. Your perception of time is an illusion as Einstein said so what can the carnal mind know about the nature of reality?

You’re omitting the human spirit from that equation. The brain is limited while the spirit is not.

So where do you draw the line? At what point do we stop relying on our own minds?

originally posted by: snrb123

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: snrb123

Nope, it's a way of saying you're a limited 3 dimensional being who doesn't even know the nature of time so why would you lean unto your own limited understanding to know about God and spiritual things? God is outside of space and time, you're stuck in 3 dimensions of space with access to 1 dimension of time. Your perception of time is an illusion as Einstein said so what can the carnal mind know about the nature of reality?

You’re omitting the human spirit from that equation. The brain is limited while the spirit is not.

So where do you draw the line? At what point do we stop relying on our own minds?

That's exactly my point. The Spirit leads us to all truths not the carnal mind which is limited.

John 16:13 - Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: neoholographic

From Hawking's talk:

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate
theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I
used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now
glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end,
and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery.
Without it, we would stagnate. Gödel’s theorem ensured there
would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do
the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved.

There will never be an end searching for the truth.

Like I said, there's no truth in physics or the mathematics physics uses. Here's more about Godel numbers:

Things are getting trippy, but nevertheless, our metamathematical statement — “The formula with Gödel number sub(y, y, 17) cannot be proved” — is sure to translate into a formula with a unique Gödel number. Let’s call it n.

Now, one last round of substitution: Gödel creates a new formula by substituting the number n anywhere there’s a y in the previous formula. His new formula reads, “The formula with Gödel number sub(n, n, 17) cannot be proved.” Let’s call this new formula G.
link

They're trying to derive the truth of the formula from the formula.

Naturally, G has a Gödel number. What’s its value? Lo and behold, it must be sub(n, n, 17). By definition, sub(n, n, 17) is the Gödel number of the formula that results from taking the formula with Gödel number n and substituting n anywhere there’s a symbol with Gödel number 17. And G is exactly this formula! Because of the uniqueness of prime factorization, we now see that the formula G is talking about is none other than G itself.

G asserts of itself that it can’t be proved.

Here's the kicker:

But can G be proved? If so, this would mean there’s some sequence of formulas that proves the formula with Gödel number sub(n, n, 17). But that’s the opposite of G, which says no such proof exists. Opposite statements, G and ~G, can’t both be true in a consistent axiomatic system. So the truth of G must be undecidable.
link

Read this then listen to Penrose:



Hawking tells you there isn't any truth in physics. It's just a never ending search which makes no sense. How can you have contingent things with no cause?

In order to find truth, you have to go outside of physics and mathematical formulas. How can a being limited to 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time know about God and spiritual matters that are outside their perception of time?

Jesus said:

John 18:36 - Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Deuteronomy 10:14 - Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

Psalm 115:16 - The highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind.

Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The Bible tells us to think outside of 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time where there's multiple heavens. God is outside of our perception of time so why would you lean unto the understanding of humans stuck in 1D of time?

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: snrb123

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: snrb123

Nope, it's a way of saying you're a limited 3 dimensional being who doesn't even know the nature of time so why would you lean unto your own limited understanding to know about God and spiritual things? God is outside of space and time, you're stuck in 3 dimensions of space with access to 1 dimension of time. Your perception of time is an illusion as Einstein said so what can the carnal mind know about the nature of reality?

You’re omitting the human spirit from that equation. The brain is limited while the spirit is not.

So where do you draw the line? At what point do we stop relying on our own minds?

That's exactly my point. The Spirit leads us to all truths not the carnal mind which is limited.

John 16:13 - Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Ah ok. I see that now.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: neoholographic

From Hawking's talk:

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate
theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I
used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now
glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end,
and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery.
Without it, we would stagnate. Gödel’s theorem ensured there
would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do
the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved.

There will never be an end searching for the truth.

Also, how can there be a never ending search for the truth if there isn't a never ending, Eternal Searcher of the truth?

a reply to: neoholographic

This is a great thread if you are hammer looking for nails.

Or if you want to get stuck on a train to Hell's Solipsistic Kitchen.

You really dont need much metaphysical whatnot. Electroweak force splits apart at 10 ^15 K and Neutrino decoupling happens at 10 billion Kelvin. There's a bunch of those "no reason why things happen at this temperature" parameters.

Apart from the preprogrammed stuff like that there's really no need for anything outside the phenomernal physical universe.

Seriously, there isn't really any "open system" interactions that are needed to explain anything after all the phase changes. Proving the graviton fills in the last blank. A boson with a +2 spin. Need a really really big accelerator first.

Seriously swimming against the empirical current since CERN UNEQUIVOCALLY showed the Higgs Boson is a massless/spinless particle that explains the creation of matter.

Once again about the only place for "outside the universe" things there is the seemingly preset temperature at which the Higgs-boson does it's thing.

*But* because I hold hard atheism as an invalid position lacking the same priori as belief, I'll say at most the parameters are prewriten and something hit "Run.exe" on their vacuum genesis universe simulator. The self-contained program runs from there.

a reply to: Degradation33

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 understanding that connects us to truth and the source of all truth which is God.

The Bible says, you need to be born again and you need to crucify the flesh. This is so the righteousness of Christ can be born within and to get the carnal mind out of the way. A mind stuck in 3 dimensions of space with access to only 1 dimension of time can't use their carnal mind to understand what's outside of their limited perception of time.

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 Sophmore year of college existential moment 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 it's next sim universe 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 too. 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 plain 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 the 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?

a reply to: neoholographic

You are using apples to argue the existence of oranges!

First, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem is for formal mathematic systems. The kind where they spend 5 pages to prove “1 + 1 = 2”.

Unless you argue that math is not human made then you are not saying much about reality. And if you’re saying math is not human made… well then that is a good deal different. If math is not human made then there is your simulation theory because nothing meaningful can be said from inside the simulation!

Formal math has strict structure that limits what you can apply it to. And if you stop and really think about that, then math is not scary but a tool used to explain our surroundings.

You can use a facial tissue to blow your nose but it doesn’t explain what is causing your nose to run!

Extending to reality is not good philosophy. And then trying to extend the idea is a huge stretch as well.

Sorry, didn’t enumerate my points… but this is not a formal argument either.

If the world can be explained with only mathematics then you have a valid point. But we are not sophisticated enough to understand how to counteract the effects of gravity even with our knowledge of physics and math!

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!

a reply to: neoholographic

Nice topic, SnF.


I have some questions, if you don't mind.

What Godel's Theorems boil down to is that there's not truth in mathematics or physics itself.

Johnny has one ball.

Sally gives Johnny another ball.

How many balls does Johnny have?

The only truth comes from our understanding that something is true, not from the thing itself.

Have you ever walked into a glass door that you thought was open?

The Bible says, Lean not unto thine own understanding.

Therefore, you do not understand the Bible.

This is true. Why would you listen to an atheist or a materialist whose understanding is limited to 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time? They know nothing about the nature of reality outside of their limited perception of time.

Prove to me that Jesus loves you. And if you say because he died for you on the cross you lose because your understanding is then defined by 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time.

So someone years ago could look at the waters and say the sea king made the oceans. They have no truth.

Instead you went with the desert king of the Jewish people. Many people had to die because of his will.

Men, women, children, unborn children ripped from the womb and sometimes even the animals too were ruthlessly slaughtered to appease this desert king.

Quite the resume.

It's a statement that I know is true but it's unprovable.

Think on that, really think.

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

Using an object that is limited to the 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time?

Is it because it has statements that "you know are true but unprovable"?


How does that invalidate Hinduism, as an example of a much older religion?

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

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?

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: neoholographic

From Hawking's talk:

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate
theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I
used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now
glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end,
and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery.
Without it, we would stagnate. Gödel’s theorem ensured there
would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do
the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved.

There will never be an end searching for the truth.

Also, how can there be a never ending search for the truth if there isn't a never ending, Eternal Searcher of the truth?

New discoveries in how to search, observe, learn and theorize differently, and yes eternally or at least as long as we exist, if we continue to invent new ways to visualize space/time/dimensions/mobius twisting/paradoxes like the ant on a rubber rope who takes a quantum leap.

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.