/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10077130
"1. Toute proposition divine est vraie.
2. Celui [deux mots illisibles entre parenthèses] qui croit à la négation d'un dogme commet un péché mortel.
3. Celui qui ne croit pas à un dogme tout en sachant qu'il s'agit d'un dogme commet un péché mortel.
4. Celui qui enseigne publiquement la négation d'un dogme comme étant la vérité commet un péché mortel.
5. Celui qui affirme en privé [la négation d'un dogme comme étant la vérité commet un péché mortel].
6. Le monde existe depuis approximativement 6000 ans.
7. Le ciel est fait de matière solide

Ce sont les sept premières propositions d'une liste de quarante. Manifestement, le problème vient de ce que la science donne pour vraies des propositions contraires à celles de la Bible. La Bible permet de faire remonter l'origine du monde à quelque six mille ans." (Les démons de Gödel, Pierre Cassou-Noguès, pp. 202-203)

>>10077132
"Le problème du rapport entre science et religion, que soulèvent les premières propositions, réapparaît par exemple en 1961 dans les lettres de Gödel à sa mère, sur l'immortalité de l'âme. Le conflit est alors considéré comme résolu:
Nous sommes loin de pouvoir justifier scientifiquement la vue théologique du monde, mais je crois qu'il est déjà aujourd'hui possible de montrer de façon purement rationnelle (sans le secours de la foi ou d'aucune sorte de religion) que la vue théologique du monde est tout à fait compatible avec les faits connus. Dans la liste de 1939, Gödel donne deux propositions suggérant une résolution du conflit en faveur de la religion. L'une d'elles est anecdotique :

25. Les fossiles sont-ils l'œuvre du diable?

Le diable nous tromperait en nous livrant des fossiles, et toutes sortes d'indices, du reste, qui donnent à penser que le monde est plus vieux que ne le dit la Bible." (ibid. p. 204)

>>10077130
They were atheists and materialists where it mattered, they were really just in denial.

>>10077134
"John Bahcall was a promising young astrophysicist when he was introduced to Gödel at a small Institute dinner. He identified himself as a physicist, to which Gödel’s curt response was "I don’t believe in natural science." The philosopher Thomas Nagel recalled also being seated next to Gödel at a small gathering for dinner at the Institute and discussing the mind—body problem with him, a philosophical chestnut that both men had tried to crack. Nagel pointed out to Gödel that Gödel’s extreme dualist view (according to which souls and bodies have quite separate existences, linking up with one another at birth to conjoin in a sort of partnership that is severed upon death) seems hard to reconcile with the theory of evolution. Gödel professed himself a nonbeliever in evolution and topped this off by pointing out, as if this were additional corroboration for his own rejection of Darwinism: “You know Stalin didn’t believe in evolution either, and he was a very intelligent man.”" (Incompleteness: the proof and paradox of Kurt Gödel, Rebecca Goldstein, pp. 31-32)

>>10077136
MengeralsogivesanaccountofsomeofG'sphilosophicalideasexpressedin1939.'Importantargumentsforhisphilosophicalthinkingwerethefollowing considerations: (1)Theassumptionofclasses[sets andthebeliefintheirexistencearejustaslegitimateastheassumptionofbodiesandthebeliefintheirexistence. (2)Classes[sets arejustasnecessaryforasatisfactorysystemofmathematicsasbodiesareforasatisfactorytheoryofsensationsandofphysics.'Gstated'that adequatecharacterizationsoftheobjectivedomainofsetsinwhichhebelieveddonotyetexist:characterizationsadequatefordecidingthefundamentalproblemsof cardinalitysuchasthecontinuumhypothesis.Thisconvictionheexpressedmoreandmoreemphatically,butI[Menger]myselfneverheardfromhimanyindications aboutwhereheexpectedtofindsuchaxioms.'

This is a test: this sentence's words shouldn't be concatenated.

>>10077141
Menger also gives an account of some of G's philosophical ideas expressed in 1939. 'Important arguments for his philosophical thinking were the following considerations: (1) The assumption of classes [sets and the belief in their existence are just as legitimate as the assumption of bodies and the belief in their existence. (2) Classes [sets are just as necessary for a satisfactory system of mathematics as bodies are for a satisfactory theory of sensations and of physics.' G stated 'that adequate characterizations of the objective domain of sets in which he believed do not yet exist: characterizations adequate for deciding the fundamental problems of cardinality such as the continuum hypothesis. This conviction he expressed more and more emphatically, but I [Menger] myself never heard from him any indications about where he expected to find such axioms.' 'Meanwhile, Gödel was ever more preoccupied with Leibniz.' Menger asked G, 'Who could have an interest in destroying Leibniz's writings?' 'Naturally those people who do not want men to become more intelligent,' G replied. To Menger's suggestion of Voltaire being a more likely target, G answered, 'Who ever became more intelligent by reading Voltaire's writings?' Later (perhaps in or after the 1950s Menger discussed G's ideas about the destruction of Leibniz's writings with O. Morgenstern, who described how G, to supply evidence for his belief, 'took him one day into the Princeton University Library and gathered together an abundance of really astonishing material.' The material consisted of books and articles with exact references to published writings of Leibniz on the one hand, and the very series or collections referred to on the other. Yet the cited writings are all missing in one strange manner or another. 'This material was really highly astonishing,' said Morgenstern. (Reflections on Kurt Gödel, Hao Wang pp. 103-
104)

>>10077144
5.3.8 Husserl used Kant's terminology to reach, for now, the foundations and, afterwards, used Leibniz to get the world picture. Husserl reached the end, arrived at the science of metaphysics. [This is different from what Gddel said on other occasions.] Husserl had to conceal his great discovery. Philosophy is a persecuted science. Without concealment, the structure of the world might have killed him. (A logical journey: from Gödel to philosophy, Hao Wang, p. 166)

Gödel believes that there are two philosophies in [Soviet] Russia, one exoteric and one esoteric. The esoteric philosophy, he believes, is a unique system from which all true consequences are derived. He says that Michelet attempts to produce this sort of system with his improved version of Hegel's philosophy. (Ibid., p. 313)

>>10077135
>where it mattered
cringe

>>10077147
“Menger asked Gödel, ‘Who could have an interest in destroying Leibniz’s writings?’ ‘Naturally those people who do not want men to become more intelligent’ Gödel replied. To Menger’s suggestion of Voltaire being a more likely target, Gödel answered ‘Who ever became more intelligent by reading Voltaire’s writings?’” (Beyond analytic philosophy: doing justice to what we know, Hao Wang)

“Later (perhaps in or after the 1950s) Menger discussed Gödel’s ideas about the destruction of Leibniz’s writings with O. Morgenstern, who described how Gödel, to supply evidence for his belief, ‘took him one day into the Princeton University library and gathered together an abundance of real astonishing material’. The material consisted of books and articles with exact references to published writings of Leibniz on the one hand, and the very series of collections referred to on the other. Yet the cited writings are all missing in one strange manner or another. ‘This material was really highly astonishing’ said Morgenstern.” (ibid.)

>>10077151
Gödel said: "Russia has come to the conclusion that one should make use of the bad capitalist mode of competition and its motives too, such as employing material rewards legally." He believed that there are two philosophies in Russia, one exoteric and one esoteric. The esoteric philosophy is a unique system from which all true consequences are derived. Karl Michelet had, he said, attempted this with an improved version of Hegel's philosophy. (A logical journey: from Gödel to philosophy, H. Wang, p. 147)

19.10.75 Gödel spoke about secret theories. As an example, he conjectured that there is a secret philosophy in Russia which is fruitful for doing science and mathematics, but that the general principles of this philosophy are kept secret. (ibid p. 148)

Gödel believes that there are two philosophies in [Soviet] Russia, one exoteric and one esoteric. The esoteric philosophy, he believes, is a unique system from which all true consequences are derived. He says that Michelet attempts to produce this sort of system with his improved version of Hegel's philosophy. (ibid p. 313)

>>10077153
On 5 June 1976 Godel spoke to me about "an interesting theological
theory of history, analogous to antihistory":

4.4.20 There is a pair of sequences of four stages: (1) Judaic, (2) Babylonian, (3) Persian, (4) Greek; (a) early Christianity (Roman), (b) Middle Ages, (c) capitalism, (d) communism. There is a surprising analogy between the two sequences, even in dates, and so on. The ages in the second sequence are three times longer than those in the first. In addition, we can compare England and France with Persia, Germany with Greece. The origin of the idea is theological. But the similarity is much closer than can be expected. There are structural laws in the world which can't be explained causally. They have something to do with the initial condition of the world. I had not spent much time on these ideas about history. (ibid. pp. 151-152)

>>10077130
>Gödel
Number theory is recreational mathematics.

>>10077148
>triggered

>>10077159
Gödel also considered the relation of logic to reason and to rationalism:

8.4.9 Reason and understanding concern two levels of concept. Dialectics and feelings are involved in reason. We have also intuition of higher concepts. Christian Wolff confuses understanding with reason and uses only logical inferences. 8.4.10 Religion may also be developed as a philosophical system built on axioms. In our time, rationalism is used in an absurdly narrow sense: sometimes even confined to first-order logic! Rationalism involves not only logical concepts. Churches deviated from religion which had been founded by rational men. The rational principle behind the world is higher than people. (ibid. p. 266)

>>10077166
Mathematics is the queen of sciences and number theory is the queen of mathematics. (C. F. Gauss)

>>10077170
On 22 March 1976 Gödel made some remarks that overlap with these
earlier observations:

8.4.15 Lower functional calculus [predicate logic] consists of rules of inference. It is not natural to use axioms. It is logic for the finite mind. But we can also add logical constants such as many, most, some (in the sense of plurality), necessarily, and so on. For the infinite mind, axioms of set theory are also rules of inference.

8.4.16 For the empiricist, the function of logic is to allow us to draw inferences. It is not to state propositions, but to go over from some propositions to some other propositions. For a theoretical thinker, the propositions embodying such inferences (or implications) are also of interest in themselves. (p. 267)

>>10077183
On 6 June 19711 asked Gödel about the scope of logic and, specifically, about the view that logic should be identified with predicate logic. He had told me earlier that, for him, logic included set theory and concept theory. On this occasion, however, he expanded on the relation between logic and predicate logic:

8.4.11 The propositional calculus is about language or deals with the original notion of language: truth, falsity, inference. We include the quantifiers because language is about something—we take propositions as talking about objects. They would not be necessary if we did not talk about objects; but we cannot imagine this. Even though predicate logic is "distinguished," there are also other notions, such as many, most, some (in the sense of plurality), and necessity, (p. 266)

>>10077189
8.4.12 One idea is to say that the function of logic is to allow us to draw inferences. If we define logic by formal evidence directly concerning inference for the finite mind, then there is only one natural choice and it is not natural to treat the infinite as a part of logic. The part of formal inference or formal theory for the finite mind incorporates inferences. The completeness proof of predicate logic confirms its adequacy to this conception of logic. For Aristotle, to be valid is to have derivations and not to be valid is to have counterexamples.

8.4.13 If, however, the concern is with inference, why not look for a general theory of inference which includes every rule whose consequence necessarily follows its premise? Since we also have intuitions about probability relations, we should include rules governing probability inferences.

>>10077194
8.4.14 In contrast to set theory, predicate logic is mainly a matter of rules of inference. It is unnatural to use axioms in it. For the infinite mind, the axioms of set theory are also rules of inference. The whole of set theory is within the purely formal domain. We have a distinction of two kinds of higher functional calculus [higher-order logic]: in terms of inferences and in terms of concepts. According to Bernays, mathematics is more abstract—in the sense of having no concepts with content—than logic. Abstract structures like groups and fields are purely formal. Gödel's suggestion to include in logic rules governing probability inferences seems to point to what is commonly called inductive logic. He said specifically that the calculus of probability, as a familiar branch of mathematics, was inadequate and not what he had in mind. The suggestion reminds me of the distinction F. P. Ramsey draws between the logic of consistency—"the most generally accepted parts of logic, namely, formal logic, mathematics and the calculus of probabilities"—and the logic of truth—inductive or human logic: "Its business is to consider methods of thought, and discover what degrees of confidence should be placed in them, i.e. in what proportion of cases they lead to truth" (Ramsey 1931:191, 198). The quest for such an inductive or human logic is certainly an important and difficult enterprise. Unfortunately, however, Gödel did not further elaborate on his suggestion in his conversations with me. (pp. 266-267)

What book is this? Very interesting

>>10077681
Look toward the end of the quotations, in parentheses.

Go there and download them: gen.lib.rus.ec
Thank the Russians who did that.

It matters not what Gödel thoght, he was a logicist, not a philosopher, his opinions of philosophy are just as worthy as my evangelical uncle who denies evolution.

>>10077905
Goedel *was*, above all, a philosopher.

>>10077171
both are absolutely wrong

>>10077905
>a first rate logician and mathematician who was well-read on philosophy has nothing to value to say about philosophy
Fucking retard

>>10077881
I owe my left nut to libgen at this point. Top notch people.

>>10077170
That's kind of interesting, the idea that if we found truly grounded axioms that they ought to give rise to religion. A religion is an institution of philosophical government at the end of the day, if the philosophy was rational then perhaps the religion would be good.

Not sure if I can really agree but it's a new thought

Hey, why the ethereous magical ghost simply doesn't APPEAR and everything would be sorted out for good.

>>10078732
>>10078732
>>10078732
Mathematics are everywhere and definitive while for example modern physics aren't. (Oh, and there's no outer space: so much for NASA, Eglon the Mollusk etc.)

Your affirmation relies on natural numbers (the "both").

>>10078922
No it wouldn't: Pharaoh's magicians did replicate God's miracles: Pharaoh remained unconvinced.

In our days there are holograms, AR, LiDAR, point cloud renderers and the like.

Faith is to reason what man is to woman, they're opposite and the latter perverts the former who abases her.

so communism is a good thing after all?

>>10078988
He said the motives, the doctrine weren't good. What he meant is that the last stage of our civilization i.e., now, is Communism. Please don't tell me that you haven't noticed that the Internet, at the very least, is Communism.

Communism is debauchery (pr0n, pederasty everywhere), stupidity (social influences undermine the wisdom of crowd effect) and self-annihilation: >>10047152

>>10079002
I'm actually a convinced commie, the internet gives us the possiblity to implement it in a way it might not be counterproductive. I actually really like where everything is going including all the porn, pederasty and stupidity. It means humanity is finally getting all that shit out of it's system to finally transcend to a higher quality form of our species but I wan't other people to like it as well or it's no fun.

why be afraid of something that hasn't happened yet.

>>10079002
Already censored...

>>10079006
You're a fool: >>>/pol/189568916

>taking big, fat dumps on physishits at every turn
Goedel truly was my kind of guy. What a chad platonist.

>>10079007
Here is a backup: https://pastebin.com/MMUtNh6B

>>10077151
So why was Goedel obsessed with the destruction of Leibniz's writings? Who was it that destroyed them, in his opinion? Were they really that important and valuable?

Perhaps the greatest logician of all time, Kurt Gödel uncovered the eistence of a !orld"!ide conspiracy to ma#e men less intelligent$ %or years Gödel had been very interested in the !or# of Gottfried &eibni', !hose characteristica universalis influenced Gödel(s use of symbolism in his famousincompleteness proofs, and !ent so far as to re)uest copies of the voluminous &eibni' manuscripts to be brought to the *nited +tates during the second orld ar$ Gödel initially claimed to have discovered evidence of a conspiracy suppressing &eibni'(s !or#-that &eibni' had in fact completed the famously unfinished .and unfinishable/ universal language of thought, but had been prevented frompublishing it$ n conversation, Gödel suggested that the iennese cademy of +cience, officially inaugurated in the mid"13th century, had in fact been founded by &eibni' in secret some centuries before4 its record boo#s, !hich contained references to the complete characteristica universalis, had been systematically destroyed.

On one occasion, Gödel called his friend orgenstern, the economist, to the %irestone &ibrary at Princeton, and sho!ed him t!o piles of boo#s6 one stac# of !or#s published in &eibni'(s time, citing him, and another pile of the eact &eibni' editions !hich !ere being cited$ 7e proceeded to demonstrate that in a suspicious number of cases, the cited passages
do not exist
4 either the citations refer to a non"eistent chapter, to a missing paragraph, or to a page on !hich the supposed tet does notappear, as if the boo#s had been altered after the citations !ere made$

>>10079030
Has that list been made public?

>>10079062
The conspiracy is not dead. They probably already expunged Goedel's work uncovering it. It's likely that 50 years from now people won't even know that Goedel uncovered this conspiracy.

>>10079065
Doubt it. That is like forgetting Mark Chapman. The crazy MO is distracting for normalfags but not much else.

>>10079030
>>10079030
I myself have once found such a suppression in Gerhardt's edition of Leibniz' works. The page where a very interesting looking article was simply blank...

PS: please stop posting pictures, they dumb people down.

>>10079065
This.

Also, did you know that he found a contradiction in the US constitution?

Here it is, I believe: https://pastebin.com/jMAHjfkx

On another page, under the rubric "My philosophical viewpoint,"
Gödel lists fourteen items which appear to be an attempt to outline his
fundamental philosophical beliefs:
9.4.17
1. The world is rational.
2. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques).
3. There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.).
4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
6. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known.
7. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).
8. Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
9. Formal rights comprise a real science.
10. Materialism is false.
11. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.
12. Concepts have an objective existence.
13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.
14. Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not. (A logical journey, H. Wang, p. 316)

3.1.2 The Text of the Letters

In each of the four letters, Godel presented the discussion in one continuous paragraph. I have broken them up into smaller segments. The English translation is by Yi-Ming Wang.

23.7.61 In your last letter you asked the weighty question, whether I believe that we shall meet again in an afterlife [ob ich in ein Wiedersehen glaube]. About this, I can only say the following: If the world [Welt] is rationally constructed and has meaning, then there must be such a thing [as an afterlife]. For what sense would there be in creating a being (man), which has such a wide realm of possibilities for its own development and for relationships to others, and then not allowing it to realize even a thousandth of those [possibilities]? That would be almost like someone laying, with the greatest effort and expense, the foundations for a house, and then letting it all go to seed again.
But does one have reason to suppose that the world is rationally constructed? I believe so. For it is by no means chaotic or random, but, as science shows, everything is pervaded by the greatest regularity and order. Order, however, is a form of rationality [Vernunftigkeit].
How would one envision a second [another] life? About that there are naturally only guesses. However, it is interesting that it is precisely modern science that provides support for such a thing. For it shows that this world of ours, with all the stars and planets in it, had a beginning and most probably will also have an end (that is, it will literally come to "nothing").

>>10079120
But why, then, should there exist only this one world—for just as we one day found ourselves in this world, without knowing why and wherefrom, so can the same thing be repeated in the same way in another world too.
In any case, science confirms the apocalypse [Weltuntergang] prophesied in the last book of the Bible and allows for what then follows: "And God created a new Heaven and a new Earth." One may of course ask: Why this doubling [Verdopplung], if the world is rationally constructed? But to this question too there are very good answers. So now I've given you a philosophical lecture and hope you've found it comprehensible.

>>10079121
14.8.61 When you write that you worship the Creation [die Schopfung], you probably mean that the world is everywhere beautiful where human beings are not present, etc. But it is precisely this which could contain the solution of the riddle why there are two worlds. Animals and plants, in contrast to human beings, have only a limited capacity to learn, while lifeless things have none at all. Man alone can, through learning, attain a better existence—that is, give more meaning [Sinn] to his life. But one, and often the only, method of learning consists in first making mistakes. And indeed, that actually happens in this world in sufficient measure.
Now one may of course ask: Why didn't God create man so that he would do everything correctly from the very start? But the only reason that this question appears justified to us could very well be the incredible state of ignorance about ourselves in which we still find ourselves today. Indeed, not only do we not know where we're from and why we're here, we don't even know what we are (that is, in essence [im Weseri] and as seen from the inside).

>>10079123
But were we once able to look deeply enough into ourselves using scientific methods of self-observation in order to answer this question, it would probably turn out that each of us is a something with very specific properties. That is, each person could then say of himself: Among all possible beings [Wesen], "I" am recisely this combination of properties whose nature is such and such. But if it is part and parcel of these properties that we do not do everything correctly from the start, but in many cases only first based on experience, it then follows that, had God created in our place beings who did not need to learn, these beings would just not be we. It is natural to assume that such (or quite similar) beings, also in some way, exist or will exist. That is, we would then not exist at all. According to the usual view, the answer to the question "What am I?" would then be, that I am a something which of itself has no properties at all, rather like a clothes hanger on which one may hang any garments one wishes. One could naturally say a lot more about all these things.
I believe there is a lot more sense in religion—though not in the churches — than one usually thinks, but from earliest youth we (that is, the middle layer of mankind, to which we belong, or at least most people in this layer) are brought up prejudiced against it [religion] — from school, from poor religious instruction, from books and experiences.

>>10079124
12.9.61 That you had trouble understanding the "theological" part of my last letter is indeed quite natural and has nothing to do with your age. Indeed, I expressed myself very briefly and touched on many rather deep philosophical questions. At first sight, this whole set of views [Anschauung] that I expounded to you indeed seems highly implausible. But I believe that if one reflects on it more carefully, it will show itself to be entirely plausible and reasonable.
Above all, one must envision the greater part of "learning" as first occurring only in the next world, namely in the following way: that we shall recall our experiences in this world and only then really understand them; so that our present experiences are, so to speak, only the raw material for [this real] learning. For what could a cancer patient (for example) learn from his pain here! On the other hand, it is entirely conceivable that it will become clear to him in the next world what failings on his part (not as regards his bodily care, but perhaps in some completely different respect) caused this illness, and that he will thereby learn to understand not only this relationship [Zusammenhang] with his illness, but other similar relationships at the same time.

>>10079126
Of course, this supposes that there are many relationships which today's science and received wisdom [Schulweisheit] haven't any inkling of. But I am convinced of this, independently of any theology. In fact, even the atheist Schopenhauer wrote an article about the "apparent purpose in the fate of the individual." If one objects that it would be impossible to recall in another world the experiences in this one, this [objection] would be quite unjustified, for we could in fact be born in the other world with these memories latent within us. Besides, one must, of course, assume that our understanding [Verstand] will be considerably better there than here, so that we will grasp everything of importance with the same absolute certainty as 2 x 2 = 4, where a mistake is objectively excluded. (Otherwise, for example, we wouldn't have any idea if we are also going to die in the other world.) Thus we can also be absolutely sure of having really experienced everything that we remember. But I'm afraid that I am again going too far into philosophy. I don't know if one can understand the last ten lines at all without having studied philosophy.

N.B. Today's philosophy curriculum would also not help much in understanding such questions, since in fact 90 percent of today's philosophers see their main task [as] getting religion out of people's heads, so that their effect is similar to that of the bad churches.

>>10079129
6.10.61 The religious views I wrote to you about have nothing to do with occultism. Religious occultism consists of summoning the spirit of the Apostle Paul or the Archangel Michael, etc. in spiritualistic meetings, and getting information from them about religious questions. What I wrote to you was in fact no more than a vivid representation, and adaptation to our present way of thinking of certain theological doctrines, that have been preached for 2000 years—though mixed with a lot of nonsense, to be sure. When one reads the kinds of things that in the course of time have been (and still are) claimed as dogma in the various churches, one must indeed wonder. For example, according to Catholic dogma, the all-benevolent God created most of mankind exclusively for the purpose of sending them to Hell for all eternity, that is all except the good Catholics, who constitute only a fraction of the Catholics themselves.

>>10079131
I don't think it is unhealthy to apply the intellect [Verstand] to any area [whatsoever] (as you suggest). It would also be quite unjustified to say that in just this very area nothing can be accomplished with the intellect. For who would have believed, 3000 years ago, that one would [now] be able to determine how big, how massive, how hot and how far away the most distant stars are, and that many of them are 100 times bigger than the sun? Or who would have thought that one would build television sets? When, 2500 years ago, the doctrine that bodies consist of atoms was first put forward, this must have seemed just as fantastic and unfounded then as the religious doctrines appear to many people today. For at that time literally not a single observational fact was known, which could have instigated the development of the atomic theory; but this occurred on purely philosophical grounds. Nevertheless this theory has today brilliantly confirmed itself and has become the foundation for a very large part of modern science. Of course, one is today a long way from being able to justify the theological view of the world [das theologische Weltbild] scientifically, but I believe that it may also be possible today to perceive, by pure reasoning (without depending on any particular religious belief), that the theological view of the world is entirely consistent with all known facts (including the conditions present on our Earth). The famed philosopher and mathematician Leibniz attempted to do this as long as 250 years ago, and this is also what I tried to do in my last letter.

>>10079134
The thing that I call the theological worldview is the concept that the world and everything in it has meaning and sense [Sinn und Vernunft], and in particular a good and unambiguous [zweifellosen] meaning. From this it follows directly that our presence on Earth, because it has of itself at most a very uncertain meaning, can only be the means to the end [Mittel zum Zweck] for another existence. The idea that everything in the world has a meaning is, by the way, exactly analogous to the principle that everything has a cause, which is the basis of the whole of science. (A logical journey: from Gödel to philosophy, H. Wang, pp. 105-108)

>>10078979
What? No, of course not. It's faith that perverts reason, just look at all those religious brainlets trying to interfere with science.

Faith is also an opposite of Art. The former is dogmatic, not open to different interpretations and conservative to its core, while the latter is free, subjective in its nature and innovative.

Faith is what holds both science and art back. It's the opium of the masses. Mankind cannot advance if not through a complete rejection of faith.

>>10077130
As someone unfamiliar with thoughts of many great mathematicians and the like, I'd like to thank You for these threads.

>>10077171
>mathematics
>science

>>10077905
you are literally drawing artificial lines in the sand, fuckwad

>>10078979
>self inserting as the woman
why is communism and ultra-rationalism so highly correlated with trannyism? Looks like everybody who goes down that pigeonhole ends up chopping their own dick sooner or later.

>>10079387
Why should I value a logician's opinions on philosophy? Why should I value a lawyer's opinions on Quantum Mechanics?

Each one has their own field of expertise. Gödel's logic and mathematics. Aristotle's was philosophy. Dostoyevsky's was literature.

There's no value in Gödel's thoughts on philosophical matters.

>>10079446
>Why should I value a logician's opinions on philosophy?

Considering philosophy and logic are so heavily intertwined you asinine comparison makes no sense in trying to disregard it.

>>10077130
More wise ancestors.

>>10079307
You're welcome!

>>10079392
Babylon, who in the book of Revelation stands for reason or wisdom*, is a whorish woman.

* "A voice of many waters" is God's utterance, a stream of which flood says that when God speaks, what he says can be profitably grasped by peasants, workers, intellectuals, mathematicians, politicians etc. That Babylon, for an intellectual, is very analogous to reason is forced on him by his own experience, namely that shameful self-satisfaction of reason so familiar to him. There are other features, like reason's becoming the very thing it investigates so that, through reason's characteristic *self-knowledge*, it may understand its object of study, having become that object. Why does this pertain to Babylon? Because for reason to become some object *other than* you and, being that object, to *know* herself, is nothing but open adultery: only you (not the object she became) should *know* her. In the Bible "to know" is also an euphemism for vile intercourse (i.e., fleshy dialectics).

>>10079446
>Aristotle's was philosophy.
Back in aristotle's time "philosophy" just meant every kind of abstract mental pursuit. Nowadays it's some vague semantic circlejerk pseudo"field" that tries very hard to make it seem like it's real and not just the irrelevant navel gazing of lazy faggots with no possible application.

>>10079392
Behold, I am against thee, O thou most proud, saith the Lord GOD of hosts: for thy day is come, the time that I will visit thee. And the most proud shall stumble and fall, and none shall raise him up: and I will kindle a fire in his cities, and it shall devour all round about him. (50.31-32)

A sword is upon their horses, and upon their chariots, and upon all the mingled people that are in the midst of her; and they shall become as women: a sword is upon her treasures; and they shall be robbed. (50.37)

A drought is upon *her waters*; and they shall be *dried up*: for it is the land of graven *images*, and they are mad upon their idols. (Jeremiah 50.38)

The king of Babylon hath heard the report of them, and his hands waxed feeble: anguish took hold of him, and pangs as of a woman in travail. (Jeremiah 50.43)

Behold, he shall come up like a lion from the swelling of Jordan unto the habitation of the strong: but I will make them suddenly run away from her: and who is a chosen man, that I may appoint over her? for who is like me? and who will appoint me the time? and who is that shepherd that will stand before me? Therefore hear ye the counsel of the LORD, that he hath taken against Babylon; and his purposes, that he hath purposed against the land of the Chaldeans: Surely the least of the flock shall draw them out: surely he shall make their habitation desolate with them. At the noise of the taking of Babylon the earth is moved, and the cry is heard among the nations. (Jeremiah 50.44-46)

>>10079748
The mighty men of Babylon have forborn to fight, they have remained in their holds: their might hath failed; they became as women: they have burned her dwellingplaces; her bars are broken. One post shall run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to shew the king of Babylon that his city is taken at one end, And that the passages are stopped, and the reeds they have burned with fire, and the men of war are affrighted. For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; The daughter of Babylon is like a threshingfloor, it is time to thresh her: yet a little while, and the time of her harvest shall come. Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon hath devoured me, he hath crushed me, he hath made me an empty vessel, he hath swallowed me up like a dragon, he hath filled his belly with my delicates, he hath cast me out. The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon, shall the inhabitant of Zion say; and my blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea, shall Jerusalem say. (Jeremiah 51.30-)

Behold, thy people in the midst of thee are women: the gates of thy land shall be set wide open unto thine enemies: the fire shall devour thy bars. (Nahum 3.13)

>>10077130
>they will have to have some rational religion.

Gee I wonder who the pseudointellectuals who reprent that "rational" religion are?

>>10079751

See? Rationalism is haughty effeminacy. Reason also claims to be God, for who, except God, knows himself? This is her great blasphemy and why she must fall, again and again abased.

See this: https://pastebin.com/MMUtNh6B

>>10079796
>https://pastebin.com/MMUtNh6B
I mention the matter now because, owing to the egocentricity in our historical outlook, to which I have already referred (para. 159), it is often supposed that female emancipation is an invention of the modern white man. Sometimes we imagine that we have arrived at a conception of the status of women in society which is far superior to that of any other age; we feel an inordinate pride because we regard ourselves as the only civilized society which has understood that the sexes must have social, legal, and political equality. Nothing could be farther from the truth. A female emancipating movement is a cultural phenomenon of unfailing regularity; it appears to be the necessary outcome of absolute monogamy. The subsequent loss of social energy after the emancipation of women, which is sometimes emphasized, has been due not to the emancipation but to the extension of sexual opportunity which has always accompanied it. In human records there is no instance of female emancipation which has not been accompanied by an extension of sexual opportunity. (Sex and Culture, J. D. Unwin, pp. 344-345)

>>10079804
Generally speaking, in the past when they began to display great energy (as opposed to the lesser energy of uncivilized peoples), human societies were absolutely monogamous. There is only one example of a polygamous society displaying productive social energy, that of the Moors; but in their case the women whom the men took to wife had been reared in an absolutely monogamous tradition. The energy of the Moors faded away when the mothers spent their early childhood in a less rigorous tradition. With this exception, the energy of the most developed civilized societies, or that of any group within them, was exhibited for so long as they preserved their austere regulations. Their energy faded away as soon as a modified monogamy became part of the inherited tradition of the whole society. No group of human beings, however, has ever been able, or at any rate has ever consented, to tolerate a state of absolute monogamy for very long. This is not surprising, for it is an unequal bargain for the women; and in the end they have always been freed from their legal disadvantages.To express the matter in popular language, they have been 'emancipated'. This has happened regularly and unfailingly in every recorded example of absolute monogamy, except one; in that case special circumstances prevailed. The Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, and Teutons began their historical careers in a condition of absolute monogamy; in each case the women were legal nonentities. (ibid. pp. 343-344)

>>10079227
What will you say, when at most a few decades from today, it shall be avowed* by the scoundrelic scientific community itself that there is neither outer space nor Darwinism in nature, that earth isn't a globe but is what the Bible calls the void and without form Hell, the stomach of grand sea monster?

* Communism must happen, it already prevails on the Internet. This digital layer is to be cast out into the analogue earth, think IoT, robots, self-driving cars etc. because it is the point final of this world (called "generation" in the Bible.) To that end scientists (and other talking heads) will be exposed as the liars that they are so that the stupid proletariat whom they manipulated shall destroy them.

You're a prole.

So was Gödel catholic, agnostic, atheist or what?

>>10079909
He refers to the Bible in the above passages, in particular to the New Testament's book of Revelation.

More quotations from Wang, here's what Goedel is reported to have said:

4.4.14 Power is a quality that enables one to reach one's goals. Generalities concontain the laws which enable you to reach your goals. Yet a preoccupation with power distracts us from paying attention to what is at the foundation of the world, and it fights against the basis of rationality.

4.4.15 The world tends to deteriorate: the principle of entropy. Good things appear from time to time in single persons and events. But the general development tends to be negative. New extraordinary characters emerge to prevent the downward movement. Christianity was best at the beginning. Saints slow down the downward movement. In science, you may say, it is different. But progress occurs not in the sense of understanding the world, only in the sense of dominating the world, for which the means remains, once it is there. Also general knowlknowledge, though not in the deeper sense of first principles, has moved upwards. Specifically, philosophy tends to go down. (p. 150)

>>10079921
4.4.16 The view that existence is useful but not true is widely held, not only in mathematics but also in physics, where it takes the form of regarding only the directly observable [by sense perception] as what exists. This is a prejudice of the time. The psychology behind it is not the implicit association of existence with time, action, and so on. Rather the association is with the phenomenon that conconsistent but wrong assumptions are useful sometimes. Falsity is in itself something evil but often serves as a tool for finding truth. Unlike objectivism, however, the false assumptions are useful only temporarily and intermediately. (p. 150)

Gcallshisownreligiontheisticandnotpantheistic,followingLeibnizratherthanSpinoza(seeGQ). (Reflections on Kurt Goedel, H. Wang, p. 149)

4.4.23 Einstein's religion is more abstract, like that of Spinoza and Indian philosphilosophy. My own religion is more similar to the religion of the churches. Spinoza's God is less than a person. Mine is more than a person, because God can't be less than a person. He can play the role of a person. There are spirits which have no body but can communicate with and influence the world. They keep [themselves] in the background today and are not known. It was different in antiquity and in the Middle Ages, when there were miracles. Think about deja mi and thought transference. The nuclear processes, unlike the chemical, are irrelevant to the brain. (A logical journey, H. Wang, p. 152)

>>10079929
G calls his own religion theistic and not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza(seeGQ). (Reflections on Kurt Goedel, H. Wang, p. 149)

4.4.23 Einstein's religion is more abstract, like that of Spinoza and Indian philosphilosophy. My own religion is more similar to the religion of the churches. Spinoza's God is less than a person. Mine is more than a person, because God can't be less than a person. He can play the role of a person. There are spirits which have no body but can communicate with and influence the world. They keep [themselves] in the background today and are not known. It was different in antiquity and in the Middle Ages, when there were miracles. Think about deja vu and thought transference. The nuclear processes, unlike the chemical, are irrelevant to the brain. (A logical journey, H. Wang, p. 152)

The mother had a broad literary education, partly in France. But she was also a competent and imaginative Hausfrau, to whom both her children were very much attached. She was brought up as a Protestant, her husband was only formally Catholic, and the children received no religious training. Gödel's older brother has remained unmoved by religion. Gödel himself developed quite early unorthodox theological interests, had a life-long dislike of the Catholic Church, and a soft spot for new sects, in the New World, of which he spoke often in conversation, and also wrote at some length to his mother, for example in a letter dated 18 March 1961. (Kurt Goedel, G. Kreisel, p. 152)

She [Gödel's wife] would make fun of his reading matter, for example, on ghosts or demons (but never of pages of logical formulae which have their funny side too if she only knew). (ibid. 155)

One has to be careful not to be misled by terminology here. For instance, the term "world" is not a monopoly of many-world theorists, for the Platonic part of the actual world might be referred to as another "world". Indeed, in his metaphysical and religious speculations Gödel apparently postulated a second "world" which is essentially a realization of all the potentialities existing in this actual universe of ours. (See Dawson 1997, pp. 210-211.) (On Gödel, Jaako Hintikka, p. 46)

>>10077153
>Gödel spoke about secret theories. As an example, he conjectured that there is a secret philosophy in Russia which is fruitful for doing science and mathematics, but that the general principles of this philosophy are kept secret. (ibid p. 148)
literally /pol/-tier babbling about made up conspiracies

>>10080616
Anti-sage.

>>10078966
>no outer space

Nigga buy a balloon and a gopro and see for yourself

>>10077905
You are a fucking moron.
>>10078732
You are also a moron

>>10079012
This
Physishits absolutely BTFO

>>10079737
>no possible application.
The biggest sign of a moron is someone who only looks for things that are 'useful" as opposed to those who pursue truth and knowledge for its own sake.

>>10079107
which books on libgen have the most original works of leibniz?

>>10079120
WHICH BOOK?

Can someone help me find a copy of "Ibid" online?

bump

>>10081299
>>10081316
I studied Leibniz between 2002 and 2005 (then turned to the Bible). I took the books here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/accueil/?mode=desktop

Since then, one can look into these: http://www.helsinki.fi/~mroinila/texts.htm

Don't expect to find what you're looking for: Goedel was right, certain things are not to be told* in public: Jesus showed this.

* Truth isn't the share of the multitude, otherwise it wouldn't be precious.

>>10081299
This.

>>10081481
There in fact is a characteristica universalis.

Trying to expound it on fora cost me dearly (I lost my mother and my sister almost succeeded in her suicide).

However, one is allowed to recommend the study of the Bible, with special attention to the book of Revelation...

Gödel usually did not say that phenomenology includes a metaphysics as a theory, even though he might have thought that Husserl did go on to obtain, privately, a metaphysics. He formulated his own ideal thus: "Philosophy as exact theory should do for metaphysics as much as Newton did for physics" (MP:85).

5.3.10 See 9.3.10.

5.3.11 The beginning of physics was Newton's work of 1687, which needs only very simple primitives: force, mass, law. I look for a similar theory for philosophy or metaphysics. Metaphysicians believe it possible to find out what the objective reality is; there are only a few primitive entities causing the existence of other entities. Form (So-Sein) should be distinguished from existence (Da-Sein): the forms — though not the existence — of the objects were, in the middle ages, thought to be within us. (A logical journey, H. Wang, p. 167)

Concerning Isaac Newton, one should consult these his **religious** studies. He did more Bible study than "science": http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/texts/newtons-works/religious

Another recommendation: don't be lascivious, don't watch suggestive material (hence turn pics off in your browser, especially on youth-perverting places like 4chan) and, by all mean, don't be a faggot nor fap.

Chastity.

>>10081549
>don't be a faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>10081560
Why the fagbots?

>>10081562
Why the botphobia?

>>10081571
Alright then. Here is why homosexuality is a post-terminal illness, a cancer of man and society: >>>/pol/189568916

>>10081481
Give not that which is holy unto **the dogs**, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (Matthew 7.6)

Hence:
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: (Matthew 13.34)

But Jesus is no coward:
And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid. For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet: The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. **But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.** And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed. (Mark 7.24-30)

Her daughter lived, Jesus sacrificed himself.

>>10079028
Leibniz vs Marlborough family (churchill’s). Marlborough’s won and they delete their enemies.
Simple as that.

>>10077151
>Naturally those people who do not want men to become more intelligen
wow. Godel actually called (((them))) out.

too bad he was a complete retard outside of mathematics and specially in philosophy.

>>10081842
There is nothing stupid about Godel's philosophy, if you're not a Platonist you're a fucking moron.

>>10082300
Being a platonist is literally dumber than any modern religion. You're inventing some supernatural thing that exists outside of the universe except at least religious people have an have an explanation for why their shit exists.

>>10081549
yikes

>>10078966
>speculations and concepts are about reality

low iq af

>>10078774
100

>>10082588
>I have no idea what I'm talking about
Pathetic desu.

>>10082880
>I have no idea how to form a proper argument

>>10082902
Your rambling, clueless imbecility does not require an argument in reply. This is not a debate.

>>10082588
Kill yourself or learn about the subject before you talk about it.

>>10082880
>>10082942
>>10083466
wow. for someone who doesn't want to argue you sure are mad and incredibly interested in a response.
You wouldn't get triggered so easily if your beliefs weren't retarded. Maybe re-examine them.