Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic

[godelian]

You are too mathematical bias and inclined which is not in exactly alignment with philosophical which is the essence of this Forum, i.e. a philosophical forum.
If you want to reject the philosophical essence and insist on mathematics as the essence you should do that in a forum specializing in Mathematics.

If you believe that science is the only or the highest benchmark for truth, then you should do that in a forum specializing in pseudoscience.

Philosophically,
Truth or verity is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
Philosophically, truth is synonymous with reality, fact and objectivity [FSRC].

Yes, that is exactly what Tarski's theory of truth develops in a mathematically unobjectionable manner. Mathematics brings consistency to the matter. That is why it is the superior approach.

If mathematics per se has nothing to do with the physical universe, then it cannot be real, thus meaningless.

That is a limitation in how you see things. Mathematical realism is perfectly fine. You only say these things because you are ignorant of Tarski's theory of truth.

In the case of mathematical realism, it is illusory relative to scientific reality.

Without mathematical realism, science would fall apart. So, your views are simply circular.

You see, scientists do not have a problem with mathematical realism. Only non-scientists do. Their motivation is not that they want to do science, because they obviously don't -- otherwise they would be scientists and they aren't -- but because they want to invent some kind of fake proof for atheism.

[Skepdick]

Thesis: Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic

It's like you don't understand anything. Obviously God isn't real.

Not everything that exists is real.

Therefore, Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic

Discuss?

What's there to discuss? God exists in the understanding; and you literally don't understand anything.

[Skepdick]

Yes, that is exactly what Tarski's theory of truth develops in a mathematically unobjectionable manner. Mathematics brings consistency to the matter. That is why it is the superior approach.

It does? Prove that Mathematics is consistent. And then prove that the proof-system you are using to prove that Mathematics is consistent is itself consistent.

[godelian]

Yes, that is exactly what Tarski's theory of truth develops in a mathematically unobjectionable manner. Mathematics brings consistency to the matter. That is why it is the superior approach.

It does? Prove that Mathematics is consistent. And then prove that the proof-system you are using to prove that Mathematics is consistent is itself consistent.

Impossible.

We can still assume consistency in mathematics because no counterexamples have been found. We do not assume it because there would be proof for it. That is indeed the quagmire of Godel's second incompleteness theorem.

So, yes, agreed, proof of consistency is self-defeating, while proof of soundness is irrelevant.

But then again, if you manage to find a counterexample, i.e. proof of inconsistency, that would be fantastic because then all of us can go home.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are too mathematical bias and inclined which is not in exactly alignment with philosophical which is the essence of this Forum, i.e. a philosophical forum.
If you want to reject the philosophical essence and insist on mathematics as the essence you should do that in a forum specializing in Mathematics.

If you believe that science is the only or the highest benchmark for truth, then you should do that in a forum specializing in pseudoscience.

Strawman.
I did NOT claim Science is the ONLY, but the merely the best at present among many system of truth and reality.

Philosophically,
Truth or verity is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
Philosophically, truth is synonymous with reality, fact and objectivity [FSRC].

Yes, that is exactly what Tarski's theory of truth develops in a mathematically unobjectionable manner. Mathematics brings consistency to the matter. That is why it is the superior approach.

If mathematics per se has nothing to do with the physical universe, then it cannot be real, thus meaningless.

That is a limitation in how you see things. Mathematical realism is perfectly fine. You only say these things because you are ignorant of Tarski's theory of truth.

In the case of mathematical realism, it is illusory relative to scientific reality.

Without mathematical realism, science would fall apart. So, your views are simply circular.

You see, scientists do not have a problem with mathematical realism. Only non-scientists do. Their motivation is not that they want to do science, because they obviously don't -- otherwise they would be scientists and they aren't -- but because they want to invent some kind of fake proof for atheism.

Your thinking is too shallow and narrow.

Science like Physics and other do adopt mathematics to refine their conclusions, but Science do not fall apart without mathematics, here is why:

Here's from AI[wR]:

Science can reach its conclusion without mathematics:

Qualitative Observations: Science starts with observing the world. We can see that some mushrooms are poisonous based on their color or texture, without needing to measure their exact toxicity. Similarly, early astronomers observed the movement of planets in the night sky, forming the basis for celestial mechanics, long before complex mathematical models were developed.

Simple Experiments: Basic experiments can reveal relationships without complex calculations. Observing that plants grow better with sunlight doesn't require measuring light intensity or plant growth rate.

Pattern Recognition: Science is about finding patterns in nature. We can identify different bird species based on their physical characteristics (color, beak shape) without needing to measure wingspans or other mathematical parameters.

While math is a powerful tool for quantifying and analyzing data, science can make progress through observation, experimentation, and description without always needing the precision of mathematical formulas.

Even when mathematics is invoked;

Math Often Emerges Later: Qualitative observations might come first, but as science progresses, mathematical descriptions often follow. For example, after observing the movement of planets, scientists eventually developed the mathematical laws of gravity.

[godelian]

Science like Physics and other do adopt mathematics to refine their conclusions, but Science do not fall apart without mathematics, here is why:

Here's from AI[wR]:

Science can reach its conclusion without mathematics:

Qualitative Observations: Science starts with observing the world. We can see that some mushrooms are poisonous based on their color or texture, without needing to measure their exact toxicity. Similarly, early astronomers observed the movement of planets in the night sky, forming the basis for celestial mechanics, long before complex mathematical models were developed.

Simple Experiments: Basic experiments can reveal relationships without complex calculations. Observing that plants grow better with sunlight doesn't require measuring light intensity or plant growth rate.

Pattern Recognition: Science is about finding patterns in nature. We can identify different bird species based on their physical characteristics (color, beak shape) without needing to measure wingspans or other mathematical parameters.

While math is a powerful tool for quantifying and analyzing data, science can make progress through observation, experimentation, and description without always needing the precision of mathematical formulas.

Even when mathematics is invoked;

Math Often Emerges Later: Qualitative observations might come first, but as science progresses, mathematical descriptions often follow. For example, after observing the movement of planets, scientists eventually developed the mathematical laws of gravity.

Ok, but in that case, you cannot use numbers. That leaves very little of modern science. I guess that it is almost completely gone, if it must be done without ever using a number. It would still be some crippled remnant of what is today science, but it would be mostly irrelevant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thesis: Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic

It's like you don't understand anything. Obviously God isn't real.

Not everything that exists is real.

Therefore, Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic

Discuss?

What's there to discuss? God exists in the understanding; and you literally don't understand anything.

I did not claim God is real.

Godelian's claimed;
Godel's God is true, thus real.

So, I have to raise the,
Thesis: Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic

Mirage exists as a real-mirage but the projected image in the mirage is not the supposed real thing.

[Skepdick]

Yes, that is exactly what Tarski's theory of truth develops in a mathematically unobjectionable manner. Mathematics brings consistency to the matter. That is why it is the superior approach.

It does? Prove that Mathematics is consistent. And then prove that the proof-system you are using to prove that Mathematics is consistent is itself consistent.

Impossible.

We can still assume consistency in mathematics because no counterexamples have been found. We do not assume it because there would be proof for it.

That's circular reasoning. Write the search algorithm for a counter-example and prove it doesn't terminate e.g prove it finds nothing.

But then again, if you manage to find a counterexample, i.e. proof of inconsistency, that would be fantastic because then all of us can go home.

I don't have to find one. Define what a counter-example is. Search for it.

Like this: https://turingmachinesimulator.com/shared/vgimygpuwi

Unless you can prove the program doesn't halt - you are assuming consistency axiomatically.

But that's the very stupidity of Mathematics baked-in. Reality doesn't allow certainty of assumptions - you never have all the information.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Science like Physics and other do adopt mathematics to refine their conclusions, but Science do not fall apart without mathematics, here is why:

Here's from AI[wR]:

Science can reach its conclusion without mathematics:

Qualitative Observations: Science starts with observing the world. We can see that some mushrooms are poisonous based on their color or texture, without needing to measure their exact toxicity. Similarly, early astronomers observed the movement of planets in the night sky, forming the basis for celestial mechanics, long before complex mathematical models were developed.

Simple Experiments: Basic experiments can reveal relationships without complex calculations. Observing that plants grow better with sunlight doesn't require measuring light intensity or plant growth rate.

Pattern Recognition: Science is about finding patterns in nature. We can identify different bird species based on their physical characteristics (color, beak shape) without needing to measure wingspans or other mathematical parameters.

While math is a powerful tool for quantifying and analyzing data, science can make progress through observation, experimentation, and description without always needing the precision of mathematical formulas.

Even when mathematics is invoked;

Math Often Emerges Later: Qualitative observations might come first, but as science progresses, mathematical descriptions often follow. For example, after observing the movement of planets, scientists eventually developed the mathematical laws of gravity.

Ok, but in that case, you cannot use numbers. That leaves very little of modern science. I guess that it is almost completely gone, if it must be done without ever using a number. It would still be some crippled remnant of what is today science, but it would be mostly irrelevant.

Numbers is not mathematics per se.
A numeral say 2 by itself is not mathematics which is grounded on its 'proofs'.
Stating I have eaten 2 apples has nothing to do with mathematics at all.

[Skepdick]

Numbers is not mathematics per se.
A numeral say 2 by itself is not mathematics which is grounded on its 'proofs'.
Stating I have eaten 2 apples has nothing to do with mathematics at all.

You really don't seem to have any grasp on the relevance of the formal sciences; and how they have long superseded philosophy in all matters scientific.

Computer science ≡ Analytic Philosophy

Can you eat X apples for any X?

How about -2 apples?
Or √-1 apples?
Or π apples?

[godelian]

It does? Prove that Mathematics is consistent. And then prove that the proof-system you are using to prove that Mathematics is consistent is itself consistent.

Impossible.

We can still assume consistency in mathematics because no counterexamples have been found. We do not assume it because there would be proof for it.

That's circular reasoning. Write the search algorithm for a counter-example and prove it doesn't terminate e.g prove it finds nothing.

But then again, if you manage to find a counterexample, i.e. proof of inconsistency, that would be fantastic because then all of us can go home.

I don't have to find one. Define what a counter-example is. Search for it.

Like this: https://turingmachinesimulator.com/shared/vgimygpuwi

Unless you can prove the program doesn't halt - you are assuming consistency axiomatically.

But that's the very stupidity of Mathematics baked-in. Reality doesn't allow certainty of assumptions - you never have all the information.

If the problem is undecidable, i.e. the search algorithm does not halt, the situation is still fine. The real poison pill is the actual witness. If you find it, it is game over.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Numbers is not mathematics per se.
A numeral say 2 by itself is not mathematics which is grounded on its 'proofs'.
Stating I have eaten 2 apples has nothing to do with mathematics at all.

You really don't seem to have any grasp on the relevance of the formal sciences; and how they have long superseded philosophy in all matters scientific.

Computer science ≡ Analytic Philosophy

Can you eat X apples for any X?

How about -2 apples?
Or √-1 apples?
Or π apples?

I don't understand your point in relation to my claim;

Numbers by themselves are not mathematics per se.

[Skepdick]

Numbers is not mathematics per se.
A numeral say 2 by itself is not mathematics which is grounded on its 'proofs'.
Stating I have eaten 2 apples has nothing to do with mathematics at all.

You really don't seem to have any grasp on the relevance of the formal sciences; and how they have long superseded philosophy in all matters scientific.

Computer science ≡ Analytic Philosophy

Can you eat X apples for any X?

How about -2 apples?
Or √-1 apples?
Or π apples?

I don't understand your point in relation to my claim;

Numbers by themselves are not mathematics per se.

Numbers by themselves are absolutely Mathematics.

1, 2, 3, 4.

Numbers paired WITH UNITS are not Mathematics.
1 APPLE
2 APPLES

[Skepdick]

If the problem is undecidable, i.e. the search algorithm does not halt, the situation is still fine. The real poison pill is the actual witness. If you find it, it is game over.

This amounts to nothing more than self-justification for the paradigm of axiomatics. But that's precisely the problem!

Example: Assume a fair coin. You flip it N times - you get a streak of N tails.

What's the witness, the smallest N sufficient to reject the fairness axiom?

Nobody can find a witness that you can't even specify. Even if the witness is guaranteed to exist - how would I know that I've found it?

Here's a lesson worth learning/remembering: Ask an unbounded question, get an uncomputable answer

[Veritas Aequitas]

You really don't seem to have any grasp on the relevance of the formal sciences; and how they have long superseded philosophy in all matters scientific.

Computer science ≡ Analytic Philosophy

Can you eat X apples for any X?

How about -2 apples?
Or √-1 apples?
Or π apples?

I don't understand your point in relation to my claim;

Numbers by themselves are not mathematics per se.

Numbers by themselves are absolutely Mathematics.

1, 2, 3, 4.

Numbers paired WITH UNITS are not Mathematics.
1 APPLE
2 APPLES

Here's AI's [wR] views.

No, numbers by themselves are not considered mathematics. Mathematics is the study of concepts like numbers, their properties, relationships, and structures.
Just seeing individual numbers is like having building blocks; mathematics is what you do with those blocks to build something.
Just seeing the digits 1, 2, 3, 4 doesn't involve any mathematical concepts.

Here's an analogy: Imagine having a bunch of Legos. The Legos themselves aren't what make something mathematical. But, if you start to follow instructions to build a complex structure, or if you use the Legos to explore ideas like symmetry or angles, then that's getting into the realm of mathematics.


Numbers are fundamental abstractions that represent quantities.
Mathematics explores how these numbers behave, how they relate to each other, and how they can be used to solve problems.
For instance, knowing the number 3 doesn't involve any mathematics. But understanding that 3 + 1 = 4 or that 3 is a prime number does involve mathematical concepts.