The Soundness [???] of Godel's Argument for God

[godelian]

Conclusion: Everything is necessarily true. (□True(x))

That is the principle of explosion. It points to a contradiction in the premises.

You seem to claim that just because higher-order modal logic is used it must be absolutely authoritative with a sound conclusion.

It is preferable not to use extensions to first-order logic. This is, however, not always possible.

Deductively, if his axioms are problematic, his conclusion cannot be sound.

It requires pointing out an inconsistency in axioms. The original version had problems at that level but the reformulation by Melvin Fitting is fine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

However, they were able to verify Melvin Fitting's reformulation of the argument and guarantee its consistency.[25]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Conclusion: Everything is necessarily true. (□True(x))

That is the principle of explosion. It points to a contradiction in the premises.

You seem to claim that just because higher-order modal logic is used it must be absolutely authoritative with a sound conclusion.

It is preferable not to use extensions to first-order logic. This is, however, not always possible.

Deductively, if his axioms are problematic, his conclusion cannot be sound.

It requires pointing out an inconsistency in axioms. The original version had problems at that level but the reformulation by Melvin Fitting is fine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

However, they were able to verify Melvin Fitting's reformulation of the argument and guarantee its consistency.[25]

Whatever, don't waste time with Godel's ontological argument which is based on higher-order modal logic & mathematics. There is also the other proof based on Bayles Theorem which is useless as well.

The Cosmological Argument is more reasonable because it starts with what is real, i.e. what is can be experienced and observed, e.g. the whole universe which is acceptable to science [the gold standard of what is real].
But the problem is when such reality is linked to a God which is then problematic and hiding a whole nest of ontological elements.
The end it is,
Kant: It is Impossible to Prove God Exists as Real
viewtopic.php?t=42052

Why there must a god for theists is not an epistemological or even metaphysical problem but a psychological problem which to resolve effectively it must be done psychologically.
Note, even the drawing of cartoons triggered theists to kill to maintain the pains of the terrible cognitive dissonances and fears within.

[godelian]

Kant: It is Impossible to Prove God Exists as Real

Religion: It is Impossible to Prove that God Exists as a physical object (because God isn't one).

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.

Materialism is closely related to physicalism—the view that all that exists is ultimately physical.

Criticism and alternatives

Rudolf Peierls, a physicist who played a major role in the Manhattan Project, rejected materialism: "The premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being ... including knowledge and consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing."[47]

Erwin Schrödinger said, "Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."[48]

Werner Heisenberg wrote: "The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible ... Atoms are not things."[49]

It is silly to try to point to science or scientists for materialism/physicalism because great scientists have always rejected that view. Of course, it is always possible to find an unemployed postdoc to spout that kind of nonsense. I am sure that they are not difficult to find nowadays.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant: It is Impossible to Prove God Exists as Real

Religion: It is Impossible to Prove that God Exists as a physical object (because God isn't one).

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.

Materialism is closely related to physicalism—the view that all that exists is ultimately physical.

Criticism and alternatives

Rudolf Peierls, a physicist who played a major role in the Manhattan Project, rejected materialism: "The premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being ... including knowledge and consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing."[47]

Erwin Schrödinger said, "Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."[48]

Werner Heisenberg wrote: "The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible ... Atoms are not things."[49]

It is silly to try to point to science or scientists for materialism/physicalism because great scientists have always rejected that view. Of course, it is always possible to find an unemployed postdoc to spout that kind of nonsense. I am sure that they are not difficult to find nowadays.

It was Berkeley who demonstrated 'materialism' is not realistic. So science has rejected materialism for Physicalism.

But note the coverage for Physicalism which I don't think you will reject.

Physicalism encompasses matter, but also energy, physical laws, space, time, structure, physical processes, information, state, and forces, among other things, as described by physics and other sciences, as part of the physical in a monistic sense.
From a physicalist perspective, even abstract concepts such as mathematics, morality, consciousness, intentionality, and meaning are considered physical entities, although they may consist of a large ontological object and a causally complex structure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

There are some scientist who rejected Physicalism but that not because of theology.

According to a 2009 survey, physicalism is the majority view among philosophers,[4] but there remains significant opposition to physicalism. Neuroplasticity has been used as an argument in support of a non-physicalist view.[5][dubious – discuss] The philosophical zombie argument[6] is another attempt to challenge physicalism.

Outside of philosophy, physicalism can also refer to the preference or viewpoint that physics should be considered the best and only way to render truth about the world or reality.

I believe it is even in philosophy that the above prevails.

[godelian]

From a physicalist perspective, even abstract concepts such as mathematics, morality, consciousness, intentionality, and meaning are considered physical entities, although they may consist of a large ontological object and a causally complex structure.

Outside of philosophy, physicalism can also refer to the preference or viewpoint that physics should be considered the best and only way to render truth about the world or reality.

I believe it is even in philosophy that the above prevails.

I do not believe that mathematics, morality, consciousness, intentionality, and meaning are physical entities. I also do not believe that physics should be considered the only way to render truth about the world or reality. Depending on the actual problem at hand, it may however, indeed be the best way.

I believe in a more modern, modified non-religious version of:

Pythagoras believed in sacred mathematics and thought that the universe could be understood through numbers.

Even though I do not believe in "sacred" mathematics, I suspect that there are structural similarities between the arithmetical multiverse and the structure encompassing our own physical universe.

If you investigate the arithmetical multiverse, you can see that the existence of nonstandard arithmetical universes subtly influences the standard one, and vice versa. The standard arithmetical universe contains unpredictable truths exactly because there also exist nonstandard arithmetical universes. Therefore, you cannot limit your search for answers about the standard arithmetical universe to just itself. Hence, the standard arithmetical universe has the surprising property of being both deterministic and partially unpredictable. These properties are entirely provable.

Concerning the physical universe, if the physical universe is structurally sufficiently similar to the standard arithmetical universe, then there are numerous questions for which you cannot search the physical universe itself for answers, because in that case, the answers can only be found in the associated nonstandard physical universes.

So, there are indeed questions that can be answered by just looking at the standard arithmetical universe or by just looking at the standard physical universe, but there are also questions that cannot be answered in that way.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From a physicalist perspective, even abstract concepts such as mathematics, morality, consciousness, intentionality, and meaning are considered physical entities, although they may consist of a large ontological object and a causally complex structure.

Outside of philosophy, physicalism can also refer to the preference or viewpoint that physics should be considered the best and only way to render truth about the world or reality.

I believe it is even in philosophy that the above prevails.

I do not believe that mathematics, morality, consciousness, intentionality, and meaning are physical entities. I also do not believe that physics should be considered the only way to render truth about the world or reality. Depending on the actual problem at hand, it may however, indeed be the best way.

That is how the physical is accepted within Physicalism.
I agree with it as long as it is not adopted within Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

As such the above can be studied within Physics and the other sciences; where science is the gold standard of 'what is real'. Whatever is not real is illusory, fictitious and imaginary.

I believe in a more modern, modified non-religious version of:

Pythagoras believed in sacred mathematics and thought that the universe could be understood through numbers.

Even though I do not believe in "sacred" mathematics, I suspect that there are structural similarities between the arithmetical multiverse and the structure encompassing our own physical universe.

If you investigate the arithmetical multiverse, you can see that the existence of nonstandard arithmetical universes subtly influences the standard one, and vice versa. The standard arithmetical universe contains unpredictable truths exactly because there also exist nonstandard arithmetical universes. Therefore, you cannot limit your search for answers about the standard arithmetical universe to just itself. Hence, the standard arithmetical universe has the surprising property of being both deterministic and partially unpredictable. These properties are entirely provable.

Concerning the physical universe, if the physical universe is structurally sufficiently similar to the standard arithmetical universe, then there are numerous questions for which you cannot search the physical universe itself for answers, because in that case, the answers can only be found in the associated nonstandard physical universes.

So, there are indeed questions that can be answered by just looking at the standard arithmetical universe or by just looking at the standard physical universe, but there are also questions that cannot be answered in that way.

The point is the arithmetical universe is only real within the arithmetical framework and system.
In contrast to the science [grounded on the empirical] as the gold standard [benchmarked at 100/100], the degree of credibility and objectivity of the arithmetical FS is at best 20/100. The theological FS is rated at 0.1/100.

The point is mathematical entities are illusory but they are very useful illusions which can be transposed on the real physical [physicalism] scientific world.

If you insist, produce evidence to show that your mathematical entities are really real.
Your objective is to show that the most complex mathematical thing is a mathematical God that is not illusory, thus real.
To support the probability of your claim, just show a simple mathematical entity that is really real with the scientific FS as the gold standard of reality?

[godelian]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I subscribe to mathematical realism but I have generally no opinion about the realism of abstractions other than the mathematical ones. It really depends on what it is about.

As such the above can be studied within Physics and the other sciences; where science is the gold standard of 'what is real'. Whatever is not real is illusory, fictitious and imaginary.

Given the fact that absolutely nothing is provable about the physical universe, this looks like a poor gold standard.

In contrast to the science [grounded on the empirical] as the gold standard [benchmarked at 100/100], the degree of credibility and objectivity of the arithmetical FS is at best 20/100. The theological FS is rated at 0.1/100.

What population of 100 items exactly are you sampling? Without sampling, there is no legitimacy in terms of probability theory, and therefore, no valid statistics. You see, mathematics has total control over probability theory. Probability is a mathematical theory. Are you really trying to use probability theory against itself?

If you insist, produce evidence to show that your mathematical entities are really real.

Why don't you show me any claim about the physical universe that is actually provable?

The point is mathematical entities are illusory but they are very useful illusions which can be transposed on the real physical [physicalism] scientific world.

Science may be able to test some stubborn observable patterns in the physical universe, but what exactly does that prove? Obviously, nothing. Don't tell me that it makes things more "probable" because probability theory is a strictly mathematical theory. You cannot use it against itself.

Ultimately, your physicalist views will always turn out to be circular.

[Veritas Aequitas]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I subscribe to mathematical realism but I have generally no opinion about the realism of abstractions other than the mathematical ones. It really depends on what it is about.

As such the above can be studied within Physics and the other sciences; where science is the gold standard of 'what is real'. Whatever is not real is illusory, fictitious and imaginary.

Given the fact that absolutely nothing is provable about the physical universe, this looks like a poor gold standard.

Absolutely nothing is provable scientifically??
You are so lost with reality.

Note 'prove' in this case is used loosely.

All physical things are 'provable' by science to be real.
You deny this?

If there is a box filled with concentrated invisible carbon-dioxide or other poisonous gas, and someone challenged you to sit inside it, would you?
Say, someone did sit inside and died, it is with confidence we can rely on science to prove what really exist therein that cause the death of the victim.

Once upon a time, the moon was claimed to be made of cheese.
Now science has confirmed 'proven' what the moon is really made of.
You don't believe the moon is really what science confirmed [proven] it is?

The above applies to all physical things that science had confirmed [proven] as scientifically real.

What population of 100 items exactly are you sampling? Without sampling, there is no legitimacy in terms of probability theory, and therefore, no valid statistics. You see, mathematics has total control over probability theory. Probability is a mathematical theory. Are you really trying to use probability theory against itself?

You need sampling?
There is an exhaustive list of things science had confirmed [proven] to be scientifically real in the field of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, social sciences, etc.
Surely you don't doubt this?

If you insist, produce evidence to show that your mathematical entities are really real.

Why don't you show me any claim about the physical universe that is actually provable?

As I have given the above example of the real existence of the moon, so is the Sun and whatever science has confirmed [proven] to be real.
Take anything that is physical you can see [your monitor, computer, desk, trees, fruits, food, etc.] and show me they cannot be proven to be real.

The point is mathematical entities are illusory but they are very useful illusions which can be transposed on the real physical [physicalism] scientific world.

Science may be able to test some stubborn observable patterns in the physical universe, but what exactly does that prove? Obviously, nothing. Don't tell me that it makes things more "probable" because probability theory is a strictly mathematical theory. You cannot use it against itself.

Ultimately, your physicalist views will always turn out to be circular.

The scientific FS proves things are real scientifically which MUST be qualified to the human scientific FS. e.g. Water is H20 is real because the science-chemistry FS said so, i.e. scientifically real.
No one can claim anything to be real without qualifying it to a human-based FS.

Whatever you claim for mathematics, it must be qualified to the human-based mathematical-FS.

[godelian]

Absolutely nothing is provable scientifically??
You are so lost with reality.

This is the 35th time that we discuss exactly this point. There is no scientific proof. This is basic scientific epistemology 101. Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... 90542815D0

Scientific epistemology begins from the idea that the truth of a universal statement, such as a scientific law, can never be conclusively proved. No matter how successful a hypothesis has been in the past, it can always turn out to make incorrect predictions when applied in a new situation.

This is the umpteenth time that I have to paste this basic truth for you. You read it. You seemingly understand it. And 5 minutes later, you argue the opposite again. You just don't learn:

You Can't Wake a Person Pretending to Sleep.

You can wake a man only if he is really asleep. No effort that you make will produce any effect upon him if he is merely pretending sleep.

All physical things are 'provable' by science to be real.
You deny this?

You keep repeating the same bullshit over and over again. It is very basic knowledge that you are completely wrong. You simply refuse to learn.

You need sampling?
There is an exhaustive list of things science had confirmed [proven] to be scientifically real in the field of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, social sciences, etc.
Surely you don't doubt this?

Your use -- abuse really -- of statistics is not right, but it is also not even wrong. That is not how it is done. Can you take a very, very basic course on probability theory? The most basic one will do. Learn first about "population" and "sample".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Absolutely nothing is provable scientifically??
You are so lost with reality.

This is the 35th time that we discuss exactly this point. There is no scientific proof. This is basic scientific epistemology 101. Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... 90542815D0

Scientific epistemology begins from the idea that the truth of a universal statement, such as a scientific law, can never be conclusively proved. No matter how successful a hypothesis has been in the past, it can always turn out to make incorrect predictions when applied in a new situation.

This is the umpteenth time that I have to paste this basic truth for you. You read it. You seemingly understand it. And 5 minutes later, you argue the opposite again. You just don't learn:

You Can't Wake a Person Pretending to Sleep.

You can wake a man only if he is really asleep. No effort that you make will produce any effect upon him if he is merely pretending sleep.

All physical things are 'provable' by science to be real.
You deny this?

You keep repeating the same bullshit over and over again. It is very basic knowledge that you are completely wrong. You simply refuse to learn.

You need sampling?
There is an exhaustive list of things science had confirmed [proven] to be scientifically real in the field of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, social sciences, etc.
Surely you don't doubt this?

Your use -- abuse really -- of statistics is not right, but it is also not even wrong. That is not how it is done. Can you take a very, very basic course on probability theory? The most basic one will do. Learn first about "population" and "sample".

You are too pedantic in this case.
As I had stated there are two senses of 'proof' i.e.
1. strictly mathematical
2. ordinary sense.
what is wrong with you?

How do you prove the liguid in the glass is really water i.e. not anything else.
Surely you have to refer to science and there is no need for probability in this case, if not how else?

[godelian]

You are too pedantic in this case.

It is the epistemology of science that is pedantic. It is pedantic for very good reasons. They want to prevent you from making exactly the argument that you are trying to make.

They do everything to stop you, but you are unstoppable.

You keep trying to invent workarounds to bypass this obstacle.

You are like the operators of Chernobyl reactor 4. The manual says, "don't do it". The security compliance officer says, "don't do it". They just waited for him to complete his shift, so that they could do it anyway.

I understand that nothing is going to stop you from doing it. It doesn't matter how many people tell you not to do it. You will do it anyway.

[godelian]

You are too pedantic in this case.

От: Всесоюзное управление ядерной безопасности
Куда: Чернобыльский реактор № 4, диспетчерская

Срочное сообщение

Мы знаем, что он хочет сделать. Не позволяйте ему это делать. Заблокируйте все элементы управления в диспетчерской. Заклеить приборную панель. Поставьте трех охранников перед дверью. Нет, пять. Из Москвы прилетит специальный комиссар безопасности. Завтра он прибудет в Киев. В полдень он должен быть с вами в здании Чернобыльского реактора № 4. Мы уведомили нашего великого вождя Михаила Горбачева, генерального секретаря Всесоветской коммунистической партии. Вместе мы еще сможем спасти Советский Союз!

From: All-Union Nuclear Safety Directorate
To: Chernobyl reactor No. 4, control room

Urgent message

We know what he wants to do. Don't let him do it. Lock out all controls in the control room. Tape up the dashboard. Place three guards in front of the door. No, five. A special security commissar will fly in from Moscow. Tomorrow he will arrive in Kyiv. At noon he should be with you in the building of Chernobyl reactor No. 4. We have notified our great leader Mikhail Gorbachev, General Secretary of the All-Soviet Communist Party. Together we can still save the Soviet Union!

[Skepdick]

You are too pedantic in this case.
As I had stated there are two senses of 'proof' i.e.
1. strictly mathematical
2. ordinary sense.
what is wrong with you?

How do you prove the liguid in the glass is really water i.e. not anything else.
Surely you have to refer to science and there is no need for probability in this case, if not how else?

You really don't seem to grasp the very idea; or verb of identification. Do you?

Using the ordinary sense of "proof".

Prove that the phenomenon you identify as a "glass" is, in fact - a glass.
Prove that the phenomenon you identify as a "liquid" is, in fact - a liquid.
Prove that the phenomena I identify as phenomena, are, in fact - phenomena.

Dumbus Philosophicus.

You don't even understand who; what or why grants identity.

ALL identities are teleological.

[promethean75]

In #2, the ordinary sense, 'proof' that a glass is a glass is given in the use of the object and its respective language game. Here, the meaning of 'glass' is not just some molecular formula in chemistry and physics that can be properly stated in scientific terms. Those things can be philosophically refuted, e.g., woah man the subatomic particles that make the atoms that make the glass can be in a superposition bro!

The proof that the glass is a glass is observed by what it does and doesn't do (not what it is or isn't) unless you're considering the use of the glass for something more than a theoretical concept. U wanna use it as a door stop but aren't sure if it's heavy enough. What the glass is, the property and nature of its weight, is relevant and important. And here, the ratio of sand to silicon in the glass or the decay rate of its subatomic particles are irrelevant and need not be known for the word and object 'glass' to function in a meaningful relationship to an intelligent upright tool manipulator or group of.

Anyway i can prove to u that the glass is a glass if and only if the following conditions are met:

1. There have been similar physical things used in the same way I'm about to use this object, that are called 'glasses'.

1.a. if there have never been any 1s, i invent one and assign to it the word 'glass'.

2. I have agreement with one or more persons that the phonetic utterance 'glass' is a reference to the aforementioned object referent 'glass'.

[Impenitent]

do glasses enhance your vision or help quench your thirst?

-Imp