The justification for Theorem 1 is that a property that is exemplified nowhere must vacuously entail every other property, including negative properties, and a positive property can't entail a non-positive property. No problem up to this point, if you accept the first two axioms.
God works in mysterious ways all praise to HIM!!! I have been looking for a good kernel programming tutorial and I finally found one and he believes in God too😂😂😂 They say ask and you shall receive boy no kidding 😂😂😂
regarding the remarks about the colors green or blue and consequences of constructing implications differently -- this is usually explained through Leibniz's requirements of not all properties accepted into this consideration but only the ones which are considered perfect (vollkommen) by being positive and absolute without limits (ohne Begrenzung) -- as blue and green and whatever other colors are not absolute without limit properties -- they do not qualify for the inclusion into the set of perfect properties ;-)
The concept of “nothing” cannot have the ability to act, otherwise it would exist as a “potential act” and be one of many things that exist. If the universe came from “nothing” then this nothing would have had the ability to become the universe. But the concept “nothing” as we previously explained, cannot have the ability to act, therefore, the universe could not have come from nothing on its own. Since there are things that do exist, then “something” must have always existed, because as we just proved, things cannot come from “nothing” on their own. If time had ever proceeded at an infinite rate, which is like fast forwarding through a motion picture, we would not be here today because all events would have already occurred in a single instant. Therefore, time has always progressed at a finite rate and any mathematician can prove that time could never have progressed over an infinite time interval. The proof goes like this, pick any number no matter how great. You can always add one to it and thereby make it greater in value, therefore you can never reach infinity. And you cannot say that all we need to do is to wait an infinite amount of time and then we would reach infinity, because then you are assuming that you can wait an infinite amount of time. However, this is what you were trying to prove and so that is not proof at all. You cannot assume to be true, that which you are trying to prove to be true otherwise you can prove anything to be true, even that which is false. Therefore, time could not have started an “infinite” time ago and therefore had a beginning a finite time ago. Since “something” always existed as we previously proved, it had to have existed before time started. Since space and time are one entity called the space-time continuum as Einstein pointed out, then this “something” had to have existed before space and time existed and therefore caused space and time. Since this “something” existed outside of space and time it cannot be made up of material things, because material things can only exist in space. And this “something” could not be just chaos which has no order, because as we previously proved, something cannot come from nothing on its own, hence order cannot come from pure disorder. Therefore, this “something” had to have had the ability to cause order, space-time, material things, beauty, life, everything in our universe, including our universe and natural laws and rules. Since we call ourselves beings, then we should at least call this “something” a Being, who we call God. Since only God always existed, and the universe is not made of God as we just proved, then God must have created the universe out of “nothing”. Since “nothing” does not even exist, then God must have infinite Power in order to have created the universe from “nothing”. Since all people desire happiness, then God must have created us to be happy out of love for us. Naturally, all creatures should love their Creator. For us to love God from our heart, God had to create in us a free-will, because no person can be forced to love, otherwise this would not be true love from their heart. With our free-will, we can choose to do good or bad to our neighbor and this is why there is sin in the world, because some people have chosen to hate God and their neighbor and are only interested in pleasing themselves. God did not create evil, nor does He desire evil, but he does allow sin to happen because He had to form us with a free-will, in order for us to love Him and others from our heart.
But something cannot come from nothing. God cannot be something because then what created God? I'm not saying God doesn't exist btw, just that God is not something. The only thing there can be is precisely nothing and the only thing that can happen is precisely nothing. However, this is paradoxical, unless it also equivalent to precisely everything. If there is precisely nothing, then a single piece of information cannot exist to define nothing as nothing. Nothing cannot be what it is. Precisely nothing must be absent of everything, but everything is just precisely nothing. Nothing must therefore be absent of precisely nothing. To be absent of nothing is to be absolutely everything. Another version of the paradox is fundamentally nothing without fundamentals must be without the fundamentals "fundamentally nothing" and "without fundamentals". To solve the paradox information must exist without being created despite the only thing that can happen being precisely nothing. This seems impossible at first but it simply must happen. Nothing combined with nothing is nothing and requires literally nothing. That can certainly happen because it is equivalent to nothing happening. Numbers that don't refer to anything, are simply nothing. The inverse is a conscious awareness of nothing, which is also nothing. You cannot be conscious aware unless you are consciously aware of information. Considering the opposite forms of nothing simply do not exist, combing them requires literally nothing. That would result in a conscious awareness of all mathematical information. Information would now exist without being created and the paradox is solved resulting in the big bang! Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle proves that all fundamental particles only exist as probabilities in time, space, and momentum. The universe has even been proven to be locally non-real and the physicists that proved it, received the nobel prize. The probabilities themselves are clearly mathematical information, however, the randomness within them is not, it's simply non-mathematical information. This shows that opposite forms of nothing are connected at the quantum level. Apart from being aware of mathematical information, there isn't anything mathematical about consciousness or the concept purpose. This idea also fits with a mechanism our brain has and explains how we are conscious. Our brain has many microscopic electromagnetic fields connected to individual neurons. These neurons can sometimes be triggered via tiny fluctuations of energy within the electromagnetic fields. This means the randomness from within the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle provides inputs to our brains. This is our conscious input. We'd still need other electromagnetic fields for our thoughts and emotions and the fields would probably need to be joined together via quantum entanglement. Of course this would make consciousness entirely non-physical. However, that means we now have laws to define the nature of consciousness, and even the concept purpose. Our laws of physics define physical existence perfectly, therefore, the complete opposite should define non-physical existence. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states the entropy (chaos) always increases. It refers to mathematical complexities always increasing within our physical world and it happens due to the randomness from the quantum level. Therefore, consciousness must be compelled to selflessly reduce non-physical entropy. Basically, we consciously seek to reduce chaos within our awareness. This provides us with free will because we can be lazy and reduce our awareness of problems which is a way to reduce non-physical entropy, or we can actually solve the problems instead. All our laws of physics must apply in reverse to consciousness. It also means the total entropy (physical and non-physical) can now remain constant. It must do because information cannot be created nor destroyed. Information only exists as a very real illusion to avoid the paradox of there being nothing that is completely undefined.
_"The concept of “nothing” cannot have the ability to act, otherwise it would exist as a “potential act” and be one of many things that exist. "_ Whether you say the universe has the potential for something or lacks the potential for something, you're ascribing some property to it, negating the concept of nothing. When all is said and done, there is nothing preventing a spontaneous generation of something from nothing. Any _thing_ you can point to (aside from your own inexperienced (and therefore invalid) intuition is simply going to be a negation of the concept of nothing. _" If time had ever proceeded at an infinite rate, which is like fast forwarding through a motion picture, we would not be here today because all events would have already occurred in a single instant. Therefore, time has always progressed at a finite rate and any mathematician can prove that time could never have progressed over an infinite time interval."_ Except you're totally ignoring the possiblity of time progressing at a rate of 0. (not progressing) _" You can always add one to it and thereby make it greater in value, therefore you can never reach infinity. "_ Infinity isn't a number to be reached. It's a mathematical concept, typically addressed in set theory, not arithmetic. _"Since “something” always existed as we previously proved, it had to have existed before time started."_ You never actually proved that, and "before time started" isn't a coherent concept. At best you can get to "the instant time started" which would also be the natural starting spot, but of course that doesn't get you to your supernatural placeholder, so you simply ignored that possibility. _"And this “something” could not be just chaos which has no order, because as we previously proved, something cannot come from nothing on its own, hence order cannot come from pure disorder. "_ False analogy. Your original "something from nothing" is addressing material objects. Your latter example is dealing with properties. You've done NOTHING to demonstrate your axiom holds true with properties. At this point you've botched enough things that nothing else in your proof (that appears to be largely lifted from William Lane Craig) is even worth addressing.
When Godel came up with his 14 something axioms for his ''proof'' he was having full blown psychosis breaks. All of his friends sorta just read the paper and were like, ''ok Kurt, ok.''
@@tobetrayafriend🤔 truth is a bitter medicine. It is a powerful sensation that when a person realizes the level of personal responsibility needed to wield free will once they have realized that they have wasted their talents.....
@@alexandrosfilth7042why is it when someone doesnt have an answer they resort to some kind of pseudo-Freud nonsense answer? Im not an atheist and I think something can come from nothing. in fact numerous theology requires it (for example origin of choice). please stop your cringe
Axiom 5 is doing some heavy lifting. The other axioms are merely stating attributes of P (or of G) while leaving the actual interpretation of P to the whims of the logician, so they don't really say anything of substance. I can claim that every property that I possess is positive, while remaining consistent with the axioms. Have I proven that I am God, or only proven that I exist? If the former, then I exist in every possible universe. If the latter, then it needs to be justified that there is *any* E fitting Def. 3. Axiom 5 is handwaving to shortcut that justification.
It seems to me you are conflating positive properties (7:40) with things you agree with rather than properties of existence. Or have I misunderstood something?
The assignment of positive and negative properties is arbitrary, provided it is consistent with the first two axioms. Which is kind of his point: his choice of partition is consistent, so it does exemplify Gödel's argument. This means God can be anything you want it to, and the essence of God is simply the property of being that thing.
Interesting video, thanks! Nice Freudian slip there. 1:56 "That's heresy, I mean hearsay... or whatever". Es ist nicht immer leicht mit der englischen Aussprache, eine Logik, die viel zu wünschen übrig lässt oder....
Because of the axiom that partitions the space of all properties into two. There is no 3rd partition. You can partition the space into 3, but then the function you are describing is a different one.
In different universes properties of a given object may change such as a pen being blue or green. The problem with your criticism seems to lie in the arbitrariness of choosing what is actually a positive property. Who says that "green" is a positive property like "omnipotence"? A pen may have a different colour in another universe, an aspect that is godlike is more likely to be considered necessary in all possible universes by intuition
The main problem is how fragile the definition of "essence" is. With that definition, godliness is pretty much the only essence there can be. So the definition is contrived to serve the purpose of making the proof work.
@@ViktorEngelmann You're right, the proof doesn't seem to work in that regard. Also a problem of correspondence occurs when I claim that something is or has X because it seems to be the case. How would it be possible to develop a consistent proof based on a certain "self-evident" axiom? The basis for the argument is not on a firm ground
There is Me and The, but I am not altogether sure about our relationship # = Me + Thee (one or the other of us is god, but not both) #^2 = Me^2 + Thee^2 if we don't communicate (multiplication is not defined) #^2 = [Me^2 + Thee^2] + 2[me][Thee] if we communicate (interact) "Yesterday upon the stair I saw a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today Oh how I wish he'd go away" - Ogden Nash Godel and Fermat Every number is prime relative to its own base: n = n(n/n) = n(1_n) Every even number is the sum of two primes (Goldbach): n + n = 2n. A number cannot be both even and odd. Fermat's Last Theorem is valid. Proof for Vilage Idiots # = a + b #^n = [a^n + b^n] + f(a,b,n) (Binomial Exansion) proved by Newon. #^n = [a^n + b^n] iff f(a,b,n) = 0 #^n [a^n + b^n] QED a=4, b=3 # = 4 + 3 = 7 #^2 = 49 = [25] +[24] Note that for n = 2 #^2 = [a^2 + b^2] + [2ab] (Pythagoras and Einstein and anyone who uses vector calculas is wrong because of [2ab] c= a + ib, c* = a-ib cc* = a^2 + b^2 using imaginary numbers. But all numbers are positive??? cc* #^2 Note that #^2 = [cc*] + [2ab] imaginary numbers not necessary in full expansion. Godel Numbering of wff's does not include products of sums, so itself is incomplete. Godel and Fermat Every number is prime relative to its own base: n = n(n/n) = n(1_n) Every even number is the sum of two primes (Goldbach): n + n = 2n. A number cannot be both even and odd. Fermat's Last Theorem is valid. Proof for Vilage Idiots # = a + b #^n = [a^n + b^n] + f(a,b,n) (Binomial Exansion) proved by Newon. #^n = [a^n + b^n] iff f(a,b,n) = 0 #^n [a^n + b^n] QED a=4, b=3 # = 4 + 3 = 7 #^2 = 49 = [25] +[24] Note that for n = 2 #^2 = [a^2 + b^2] + [2ab] (Pythagoras and Einstein and anyone who uses vector calculas is wrong because of [2ab] c= a + ib, c* = a-ib cc* = a^2 + b^2 using imaginary numbers. But all numbers are positive??? cc* #^2 Note that #^2 = [cc*] + [2ab] imaginary numbers not necessary in full expansion. Godel Numbering of wff's does not include products of sums, so itself is incomplete. It is Godel's characterization of his meta-language that is incomplete, not the natural numbers.
6:00 So god is perfect sphere and has infinitely sharp edges. That's what you get by being vague enough to try to define something like that into existence. Other point is, that even if that actually worked in mathematical model, there has to be something to show that it matches actual reality. Example from physics: worm holes Working theory allows them,but nobody is seriously asserting that just because they may exist, that means they do. You can't just confuse mathematical model with reality, you have to show that they match, if you want to assert that some logical conclusion of that model applies to reality.
I don't agree with Godel's proof, and I'm not sure about your first point, but you confuse mathematical validity of non-necessary things (wormholes) with necessary things (God). If God can possibly exist, then He necessarily exists, because if it's possible that something inevitable is true, then it's inevitably true. I don't agree with that logic (you can have mutually exclusive "inevitable" truths), but that's where Godel's proof goes from God is possible/valid to necessary/true
@@jacobpeters5458 do you understand that "possible" (meaning we don't understand enough to say if it is actually possible or not) can't be used to say anything about "necessary" anything,in actual reality? (because if you start with what we do know,you can already rule out your god conjecture.. so what we don't know is the only "place" to hide it,as apologists do) my point was,that we make models about what we understand about reality and make assumptions there,see what they predict and compare with data. if you make a model without prediction,it's useless. if you ask questions that are outside of that model,you can't say "we don't know if it's actually possible or not,therefore it's necessary" is that a bit clearer? that's why this "necessary" ,is just a meaningless word play. that's what I meant with "you have to show that your model matches reality well enough for your prediction to make sense"
@@thinboxdictator6720 again, you don't understand that if something necessary is possible in this reality, then it's necessary: that's just the definition of necessary: inevitable. If it doesn't exist then it's simply not possible and wasn't necessary. You're arguing against a tautology for some reason: If it's possible that it's inevitable that the past happened, then it's inevitable that the past happened. Do you get it now? You see this with Fitch's Paradox of Knowability where if you CAN learn something but NEVER learn it, it's the same result as if it was impossible that you learned it. But this simply is either a fallacy of language, or misunderstands the idea of "possibility" by confusing the idea with the physical reality: it's possible that I read War and Peace in theory but not in practice if I never do it, for example - Godel here illegitimately jumps from the first to the second without even examining whether the properties he enumerates can coexist/not be contradictory - a mistake in Anselm's original proof as well where he assumes that someone can perfectly imagine God. As for your little conjecture about apologists hiding God in what we don't know, that's not at all related to anything in this video, again I don't think you even read the BEGINNING of my reply where I said I don't agree with Godel's "proof" (on two grounds: validity of necessities, and also I don't see how all "good" properties makes something godlike). and finally - you confuse empirical models that predict things vs non-empirical science such as modal logic or pure math or history, please don't inject your pompous atheism in a discussion that's completely unrelated to Godel's idea in this video I agree with your point about God being a sphere and having sharp edges which refutes the "good/positives" category being godlike, that's just such a bizarre idea, it probably misunderstands divine simplicity
@@jacobpeters5458 """ ... you confuse mathematical validity of non-necessary things (wormholes) with necessary things (God). If God can possibly exist, then He necessarily exists, """ """ ... if something necessary is possible in this reality, then it's necessary: """ """ But this simply is either a fallacy of language, or misunderstands the idea of "possibility" by confusing the idea with the physical reality: """ do you argue for concept of god,or actual existence of god? because "existence" means something in reality,so I don't "confuse" the meaning of "possibility" with "reality". not just in someone's head. so yes,I think it's "fallacy of language", equivocation of multiple uses of "possible". again , I've thought I was clear before.
@@thinboxdictator6720yeah that’s why disagree with Anselm’s Ontological proof. With Godel the error imo is he equates goodness with godliness which to me is a big mystery; it begs the question of why that’s his definition of it as if some force couldnt be “all good” or a god cant be evil
@@harshsharma03so is -->, in some circles. I think => means material implication, but in my view it isn't a meaningful distinction. In that view, the two symbols are equivalent. See the Discussion section in the Wikipedia article on logical implication.
Well, that should bring in all those young people missing from the churches! I'm sure they will have one look at this and say "Yes, Adam and Eve were real people eating some actual fruit while a talking snake watched them do it!"
God is perfect and by definition is free of sin. Since we are born in sin (adam and eve ate the apple) it is impossible for us to be perfect. So he sent his son Jesus to pay for our sins as a perfect sacrifice. His blood cleansed your sins.
About essence arguments (Axiom 1) -> the implications of blue vs green not being an essence of cars. It is defining what a car is. It drives. So, while Axiom 1 could appear, to the layman that it eliminates a solid argument of "in all universes", it is still true. A car is that which drives and is the "perceived" definition of a car. There is no logic to prove/disapprove - it is so. In Tatvavada from Madhva, the "beingness of things" can not be established from logic. Godliness, by definition, universally links P(phi). Across ALL P. Both are axiomatic as Godel points out, and these are true by definition. What a car is (it drives). What a pencil is (it writes). What a human body-mind is (spatiotemporal). And so is what we mean by God-like, it is an axiomatic property. The overall proof, in my opinion, is aiming is visualizing "hierarchical" perfection. In other words, 1st establish a growing set of "universes" that show G(x). God-like non-negative properties. Furthermore, showing 2 specificities: 1) that there can only be 1 universal G(x) that can possess ALL P(phi), and 2) By argument that G(x) MUST exist if there is ANY P(phi). Non-mathematically, if you believe in God, you know this essence. Intuitively, there is an infinite P(phi). And there exists only 1 G(x) that "knows" or can be "attributed" to ALL P(phi). Some P(phi) are human positive attributes. These attributes make G(x) possess these human non-physical attributes as well. These human attributes "embody" G(x) as seen from human inner perception.
Axioms do not make sense. Essence is where he made half of his mistakes. You can not equate a property of a thing to the thing itself. Because if writing is the essence of all pens then writing must be writing's property. Writing as an entity will have its own properties which is not pens' property. Essence does not make sense to me. The entire structure is nonsense. Positivity is not absolute it depends on the context. Coffee being hot in summer is not positive.
Lmao this proof is a load of barnacles, imagine being this good at maths but instead of becoming a cancer researcher or something you write a bunch of books and claim god is real with psychotic ramblings and convoluted analogies.
The problem is that God has by definition only positive properties. It will be exting to construct a similar proof (based also on modal logic) that God do not exist.
There are some bizarre inconsistencies in this presentation. Firstly, there is his apparent obsession with the Churchian superstition that God and Jesus are one and the same. It was a good point where he showed that they are not (11:54), but he keeps bringing it up even though they have nothing to do with each other in this context. Later he says (15:15): "You are either 100% good or you are essentially bad - rotten to the core". How does he draw this conclusion??? It seems very emotionally loaded and hyperbolic. I dont see that everything that is not 100% good has to be 100% bad. Rather inconsistent given his reasoning to this point. Then he goes into comparing green and yellow as essences of pencils, but those are not inherently positive properties, they are simply personal preferences, irrelevant to the function of a pencil. Under Theorem 3, he proves that x being Godlike means immortality, but how does he do that when all he does is show that y being Godlike also means immortality? Obviously if its true for one its true for all, but it being true for all does not prove it is true for one. Circular reasoning... All in all, a complete mess of an analysis. His foundations are no better than the ones he accuses Godel of contriving. I must say, however, I loved the nod to Monty Pythons Flying Circus (20:20)!!
Facetiousness is allowed in discussions like this, for the sake of levity. It doesn't undermine his point, particularly when there are those who use the argument to bolster their own deity, to the exclusion of others.
@@rsm3t His facetiousness addresses a matter that is not related to this discussion, and so becomes a distraction, not levity. He should have given a context for it. And there is only one God. Easily provable through mathematical logic.
Godel's "Theorem" Godel's "Theorem" is a complete farce and absolutely trivial. Godel assigns a unique number to all the symbols in real numbers via the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra: e.g., the syntactical symbols "+", "-", "x" (multiplication) as well as the actual numbers and powers (e.g. 3^2). By his criteria, a "proof" consists of a tautology on each side of the equal sign. At first, one might think the statement "3 + 4 = 7" is a "proof", since it can be reduced to a sum of units on either side. But that would be a contradiction, according to Godel, because "3 + 4" has a different Godel Number than "7". So the only "proofs" for Godel are G(wff) = G(wff); any other statement is a contradiction by Godel Number. NOte that this characterization is not restricted to Wwff's: the equality is also true for gibberish n the metalanguage. By that criterion, all systems comprised of symbols (wffs or not) can be proved as true or false, but not both. Even gibberish is true, provided their Godel numbers match. And who decides that the Godel Numbers are equal? I do, since you are probably a figment of my imagination... :) TRUST me :) I call it a giant twittering machine built on nothing, see my pdfs on physicsdiscussionforum dot org Remember, you read it here first... :)
Great video, great wrok. I had never heard a critical work about Godel's "proof". Really interesting.
The justification for Theorem 1 is that a property that is exemplified nowhere must vacuously entail every other property, including negative properties, and a positive property can't entail a non-positive property. No problem up to this point, if you accept the first two axioms.
Great work, thank you.
God works in mysterious ways all praise to HIM!!!
I have been looking for a good kernel programming tutorial and I finally found one and he believes in God too😂😂😂
They say ask and you shall receive boy no kidding 😂😂😂
regarding the remarks about the colors green or blue and consequences of constructing implications differently -- this is usually explained through Leibniz's requirements of not all properties accepted into this consideration but only the ones which are considered perfect (vollkommen) by being positive and absolute without limits (ohne Begrenzung) -- as blue and green and whatever other colors are not absolute without limit properties -- they do not qualify for the inclusion into the set of perfect properties ;-)
Super entertaining video, thank you!
Thanks for occupying by evening.
Godel's notion of god is probably more in line with Spinoza?
The concept of “nothing” cannot have the ability to act, otherwise it would exist as a “potential act” and be one of many things that exist. If the universe came from “nothing” then this nothing would have had the ability to become the universe. But the concept “nothing” as we previously explained, cannot have the ability to act, therefore, the universe could not have come from nothing on its own.
Since there are things that do exist, then “something” must have always existed, because as we just proved, things cannot come from “nothing” on their own.
If time had ever proceeded at an infinite rate, which is like fast forwarding through a motion picture, we would not be here today because all events would have already occurred in a single instant. Therefore, time has always progressed at a finite rate and any mathematician can prove that time could never have progressed over an infinite time interval. The proof goes like this, pick any number no matter how great. You can always add one to it and thereby make it greater in value, therefore you can never reach infinity. And you cannot say that all we need to do is to wait an infinite amount of time and then we would reach infinity, because then you are assuming that you can wait an infinite amount of time. However, this is what you were trying to prove and so that is not proof at all. You cannot assume to be true, that which you are trying to prove to be true otherwise you can prove anything to be true, even that which is false. Therefore, time could not have started an “infinite” time ago and therefore had a beginning a finite time ago.
Since “something” always existed as we previously proved, it had to have existed before time started. Since space and time are one entity called the space-time continuum as Einstein pointed out, then this “something” had to have existed before space and time existed and therefore caused space and time.
Since this “something” existed outside of space and time it cannot be made up of material things, because material things can only exist in space. And this “something” could not be just chaos which has no order, because as we previously proved, something cannot come from nothing on its own, hence order cannot come from pure disorder. Therefore, this “something” had to have had the ability to cause order, space-time, material things, beauty, life, everything in our universe, including our universe and natural laws and rules. Since we call ourselves beings, then we should at least call this “something” a Being, who we call God.
Since only God always existed, and the universe is not made of God as we just proved, then God must have created the universe out of “nothing”. Since “nothing” does not even exist, then God must have infinite Power in order to have created the universe from “nothing”. Since all people desire happiness, then God must have created us to be happy out of love for us.
Naturally, all creatures should love their Creator. For us to love God from our heart, God had to create in us a free-will, because no person can be forced to love, otherwise this would not be true love from their heart. With our free-will, we can choose to do good or bad to our neighbor and this is why there is sin in the world, because some people have chosen to hate God and their neighbor and are only interested in pleasing themselves. God did not create evil, nor does He desire evil, but he does allow sin to happen because He had to form us with a free-will, in order for us to love Him and others from our heart.
But something cannot come from nothing. God cannot be something because then what created God? I'm not saying God doesn't exist btw, just that God is not something. The only thing there can be is precisely nothing and the only thing that can happen is precisely nothing. However, this is paradoxical, unless it also equivalent to precisely everything.
If there is precisely nothing, then a single piece of information cannot exist to define nothing as nothing. Nothing cannot be what it is. Precisely nothing must be absent of everything, but everything is just precisely nothing. Nothing must therefore be absent of precisely nothing. To be absent of nothing is to be absolutely everything. Another version of the paradox is fundamentally nothing without fundamentals must be without the fundamentals "fundamentally nothing" and "without fundamentals".
To solve the paradox information must exist without being created despite the only thing that can happen being precisely nothing. This seems impossible at first but it simply must happen. Nothing combined with nothing is nothing and requires literally nothing. That can certainly happen because it is equivalent to nothing happening. Numbers that don't refer to anything, are simply nothing. The inverse is a conscious awareness of nothing, which is also nothing. You cannot be conscious aware unless you are consciously aware of information. Considering the opposite forms of nothing simply do not exist, combing them requires literally nothing. That would result in a conscious awareness of all mathematical information. Information would now exist without being created and the paradox is solved resulting in the big bang!
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle proves that all fundamental particles only exist as probabilities in time, space, and momentum. The universe has even been proven to be locally non-real and the physicists that proved it, received the nobel prize. The probabilities themselves are clearly mathematical information, however, the randomness within them is not, it's simply non-mathematical information. This shows that opposite forms of nothing are connected at the quantum level. Apart from being aware of mathematical information, there isn't anything mathematical about consciousness or the concept purpose. This idea also fits with a mechanism our brain has and explains how we are conscious. Our brain has many microscopic electromagnetic fields connected to individual neurons. These neurons can sometimes be triggered via tiny fluctuations of energy within the electromagnetic fields. This means the randomness from within the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle provides inputs to our brains. This is our conscious input. We'd still need other electromagnetic fields for our thoughts and emotions and the fields would probably need to be joined together via quantum entanglement.
Of course this would make consciousness entirely non-physical. However, that means we now have laws to define the nature of consciousness, and even the concept purpose. Our laws of physics define physical existence perfectly, therefore, the complete opposite should define non-physical existence. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states the entropy (chaos) always increases. It refers to mathematical complexities always increasing within our physical world and it happens due to the randomness from the quantum level. Therefore, consciousness must be compelled to selflessly reduce non-physical entropy. Basically, we consciously seek to reduce chaos within our awareness. This provides us with free will because we can be lazy and reduce our awareness of problems which is a way to reduce non-physical entropy, or we can actually solve the problems instead. All our laws of physics must apply in reverse to consciousness. It also means the total entropy (physical and non-physical) can now remain constant. It must do because information cannot be created nor destroyed. Information only exists as a very real illusion to avoid the paradox of there being nothing that is completely undefined.
_"The concept of “nothing” cannot have the ability to act, otherwise it would exist as a “potential act” and be one of many things that exist. "_ Whether you say the universe has the potential for something or lacks the potential for something, you're ascribing some property to it, negating the concept of nothing.
When all is said and done, there is nothing preventing a spontaneous generation of something from nothing. Any _thing_ you can point to (aside from your own inexperienced (and therefore invalid) intuition is simply going to be a negation of the concept of nothing.
_" If time had ever proceeded at an infinite rate, which is like fast forwarding through a motion picture, we would not be here today because all events would have already occurred in a single instant. Therefore, time has always progressed at a finite rate and any mathematician can prove that time could never have progressed over an infinite time interval."_
Except you're totally ignoring the possiblity of time progressing at a rate of 0. (not progressing)
_" You can always add one to it and thereby make it greater in value, therefore you can never reach infinity. "_ Infinity isn't a number to be reached. It's a mathematical concept, typically addressed in set theory, not arithmetic.
_"Since “something” always existed as we previously proved, it had to have existed before time started."_ You never actually proved that, and "before time started" isn't a coherent concept. At best you can get to "the instant time started" which would also be the natural starting spot, but of course that doesn't get you to your supernatural placeholder, so you simply ignored that possibility.
_"And this “something” could not be just chaos which has no order, because as we previously proved, something cannot come from nothing on its own, hence order cannot come from pure disorder. "_ False analogy. Your original "something from nothing" is addressing material objects. Your latter example is dealing with properties. You've done NOTHING to demonstrate your axiom holds true with properties.
At this point you've botched enough things that nothing else in your proof (that appears to be largely lifted from William Lane Craig) is even worth addressing.
Nobody is attributing "ability to act" to the concept of "nothing". Straw man.
It's also a categorical error, putting "nothing" in the class of things.
When Godel came up with his 14 something axioms for his ''proof'' he was having full blown psychosis breaks. All of his friends sorta just read the paper and were like, ''ok Kurt, ok.''
Why do you think there is something rather than nothing? Let me guess. Lots of hand waving about Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking and gravity?
@@tobetrayafriend🤔 truth is a bitter medicine. It is a powerful sensation that when a person realizes the level of personal responsibility needed to wield free will once they have realized that they have wasted their talents.....
@@tobetrayafriendYour question is immaterial.
@@alexandrosfilth7042why is it when someone doesnt have an answer they resort to some kind of pseudo-Freud nonsense answer? Im not an atheist and I think something can come from nothing. in fact numerous theology requires it (for example origin of choice). please stop your cringe
Axiom 5 is doing some heavy lifting. The other axioms are merely stating attributes of P (or of G) while leaving the actual interpretation of P to the whims of the logician, so they don't really say anything of substance. I can claim that every property that I possess is positive, while remaining consistent with the axioms. Have I proven that I am God, or only proven that I exist? If the former, then I exist in every possible universe. If the latter, then it needs to be justified that there is *any* E fitting Def. 3. Axiom 5 is handwaving to shortcut that justification.
It seems to me you are conflating positive properties (7:40) with things you agree with rather than properties of existence. Or have I misunderstood something?
The assignment of positive and negative properties is arbitrary, provided it is consistent with the first two axioms. Which is kind of his point: his choice of partition is consistent, so it does exemplify Gödel's argument. This means God can be anything you want it to, and the essence of God is simply the property of being that thing.
Great insight, thanks
Interesting video, thanks!
Nice Freudian slip there. 1:56 "That's heresy, I mean hearsay... or whatever". Es ist nicht immer leicht mit der englischen Aussprache, eine Logik, die viel zu wünschen übrig lässt oder....
Why "not applicable" is not included to "positive" and "negative"?
Because of the axiom that partitions the space of all properties into two. There is no 3rd partition.
You can partition the space into 3, but then the function you are describing is a different one.
In different universes properties of a given object may change such as a pen being blue or green. The problem with your criticism seems to lie in the arbitrariness of choosing what is actually a positive property. Who says that "green" is a positive property like "omnipotence"? A pen may have a different colour in another universe, an aspect that is godlike is more likely to be considered necessary in all possible universes by intuition
The main problem is how fragile the definition of "essence" is. With that definition, godliness is pretty much the only essence there can be. So the definition is contrived to serve the purpose of making the proof work.
@@ViktorEngelmann You're right, the proof doesn't seem to work in that regard. Also a problem of correspondence occurs when I claim that something is or has X because it seems to be the case.
How would it be possible to develop a consistent proof based on a certain "self-evident" axiom? The basis for the argument is not on a firm ground
There is Me and The, but I am not altogether sure about our relationship
# = Me + Thee (one or the other of us is god, but not both)
#^2 = Me^2 + Thee^2 if we don't communicate (multiplication is not defined)
#^2 = [Me^2 + Thee^2] + 2[me][Thee] if we communicate (interact)
"Yesterday upon the stair
I saw a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
Oh how I wish he'd go away" - Ogden Nash
Godel and Fermat
Every number is prime relative to its own base: n = n(n/n) = n(1_n) Every even number is the sum of two primes (Goldbach): n + n = 2n. A number cannot be both even and odd.
Fermat's Last Theorem is valid.
Proof for Vilage Idiots
# = a + b
#^n = [a^n + b^n] + f(a,b,n) (Binomial Exansion) proved by Newon.
#^n = [a^n + b^n] iff f(a,b,n) = 0
#^n [a^n + b^n] QED
a=4, b=3
# = 4 + 3 = 7
#^2 = 49 = [25] +[24]
Note that for n = 2
#^2 = [a^2 + b^2] + [2ab] (Pythagoras and Einstein and anyone who uses vector calculas is wrong because of [2ab]
c= a + ib, c* = a-ib
cc* = a^2 + b^2 using imaginary numbers. But all numbers are positive???
cc* #^2
Note that #^2 = [cc*] + [2ab] imaginary numbers not necessary in full expansion.
Godel Numbering of wff's does not include products of sums, so itself is incomplete.
Godel and Fermat
Every number is prime relative to its own base: n = n(n/n) = n(1_n) Every even number is the sum of two primes (Goldbach): n + n = 2n. A number cannot be both even and odd.
Fermat's Last Theorem is valid.
Proof for Vilage Idiots
# = a + b
#^n = [a^n + b^n] + f(a,b,n) (Binomial Exansion) proved by Newon.
#^n = [a^n + b^n] iff f(a,b,n) = 0
#^n [a^n + b^n] QED
a=4, b=3
# = 4 + 3 = 7
#^2 = 49 = [25] +[24]
Note that for n = 2
#^2 = [a^2 + b^2] + [2ab] (Pythagoras and Einstein and anyone who uses vector calculas is wrong because of [2ab]
c= a + ib, c* = a-ib
cc* = a^2 + b^2 using imaginary numbers. But all numbers are positive???
cc* #^2
Note that #^2 = [cc*] + [2ab] imaginary numbers not necessary in full expansion.
Godel Numbering of wff's does not include products of sums, so itself is incomplete.
It is Godel's characterization of his meta-language that is incomplete, not the natural numbers.
6:00 So god is perfect sphere and has infinitely sharp edges.
That's what you get by being vague enough to try to define something like that into existence.
Other point is, that even if that actually worked in mathematical model, there has to be something to show that it matches actual reality.
Example from physics: worm holes
Working theory allows them,but nobody is seriously asserting that just because they may exist, that means they do.
You can't just confuse mathematical model with reality, you have to show that they match, if you want to assert that some logical conclusion of that model applies to reality.
I don't agree with Godel's proof, and I'm not sure about your first point, but you confuse mathematical validity of non-necessary things (wormholes) with necessary things (God). If God can possibly exist, then He necessarily exists, because if it's possible that something inevitable is true, then it's inevitably true. I don't agree with that logic (you can have mutually exclusive "inevitable" truths), but that's where Godel's proof goes from God is possible/valid to necessary/true
@@jacobpeters5458 do you understand that "possible" (meaning we don't understand enough to say if it is actually possible or not) can't be used to say anything about "necessary" anything,in actual reality?
(because if you start with what we do know,you can already rule out your god conjecture.. so what we don't know is the only "place" to hide it,as apologists do)
my point was,that we make models about what we understand about reality and make assumptions there,see what they predict and compare with data.
if you make a model without prediction,it's useless.
if you ask questions that are outside of that model,you can't say "we don't know if it's actually possible or not,therefore it's necessary"
is that a bit clearer?
that's why this "necessary" ,is just a meaningless word play.
that's what I meant with "you have to show that your model matches reality well enough for your prediction to make sense"
@@thinboxdictator6720 again, you don't understand that if something necessary is possible in this reality, then it's necessary: that's just the definition of necessary: inevitable. If it doesn't exist then it's simply not possible and wasn't necessary. You're arguing against a tautology for some reason: If it's possible that it's inevitable that the past happened, then it's inevitable that the past happened. Do you get it now?
You see this with Fitch's Paradox of Knowability where if you CAN learn something but NEVER learn it, it's the same result as if it was impossible that you learned it.
But this simply is either a fallacy of language, or misunderstands the idea of "possibility" by confusing the idea with the physical reality: it's possible that I read War and Peace in theory but not in practice if I never do it, for example - Godel here illegitimately jumps from the first to the second without even examining whether the properties he enumerates can coexist/not be contradictory - a mistake in Anselm's original proof as well where he assumes that someone can perfectly imagine God.
As for your little conjecture about apologists hiding God in what we don't know, that's not at all related to anything in this video, again I don't think you even read the BEGINNING of my reply where I said I don't agree with Godel's "proof" (on two grounds: validity of necessities, and also I don't see how all "good" properties makes something godlike).
and finally - you confuse empirical models that predict things vs non-empirical science such as modal logic or pure math or history, please don't inject your pompous atheism in a discussion that's completely unrelated to Godel's idea in this video
I agree with your point about God being a sphere and having sharp edges which refutes the "good/positives" category being godlike, that's just such a bizarre idea, it probably misunderstands divine simplicity
@@jacobpeters5458
"""
... you confuse mathematical validity of non-necessary things (wormholes) with necessary things (God). If God can possibly exist, then He necessarily exists,
"""
"""
... if something necessary is possible in this reality, then it's necessary:
"""
"""
But this simply is either a fallacy of language, or misunderstands the idea of "possibility" by confusing the idea with the physical reality:
"""
do you argue for concept of god,or actual existence of god?
because "existence" means something in reality,so I don't "confuse" the meaning of "possibility" with "reality".
not just in someone's head.
so yes,I think it's "fallacy of language", equivocation of multiple uses of "possible".
again , I've thought I was clear before.
@@thinboxdictator6720yeah that’s why disagree with Anselm’s Ontological proof. With Godel the error imo is he equates goodness with godliness which to me is a big mystery; it begs the question of why that’s his definition of it as if some force couldnt be “all good” or a god cant be evil
I am no expert in logics, but should not most of the "=>" arrows be "-->"?
PS: your voice sounds familiar frome somewhere .... (:
The => is used as "imply"
@@harshsharma03so is -->, in some circles. I think => means material implication, but in my view it isn't a meaningful distinction. In that view, the two symbols are equivalent. See the Discussion section in the Wikipedia article on logical implication.
Similar to the Greek logos.
Well, that should bring in all those young people missing from the churches! I'm sure they will have one look at this and say "Yes, Adam and Eve were real people eating some actual fruit while a talking snake watched them do it!"
God is perfect and by definition is free of sin. Since we are born in sin (adam and eve ate the apple) it is impossible for us to be perfect. So he sent his son Jesus to pay for our sins as a perfect sacrifice. His blood cleansed your sins.
"...Godel is using contrived definitions to force a desired conclusion..." Wow, this is how religious people prove God exists too! Awesome video!!!
About essence arguments (Axiom 1) -> the implications of blue vs green not being an essence of cars. It is defining what a car is. It drives. So, while Axiom 1 could appear, to the layman that it eliminates a solid argument of "in all universes", it is still true. A car is that which drives and is the "perceived" definition of a car.
There is no logic to prove/disapprove - it is so.
In Tatvavada from Madhva, the "beingness of things" can not be established from logic. Godliness, by definition, universally links P(phi). Across ALL P.
Both are axiomatic as Godel points out, and these are true by definition. What a car is (it drives). What a pencil is (it writes). What a human body-mind is (spatiotemporal). And so is what we mean by God-like, it is an axiomatic property.
The overall proof, in my opinion, is aiming is visualizing "hierarchical" perfection. In other words, 1st establish a growing set of "universes" that show G(x). God-like non-negative properties. Furthermore, showing 2 specificities:
1) that there can only be 1 universal G(x) that can possess ALL P(phi), and
2) By argument that G(x) MUST exist if there is ANY P(phi).
Non-mathematically, if you believe in God, you know this essence. Intuitively, there is an infinite P(phi). And there exists only 1 G(x) that "knows" or can be "attributed" to ALL P(phi). Some P(phi) are human positive attributes. These attributes make G(x) possess these human non-physical attributes as well. These human attributes "embody" G(x) as seen from human inner perception.
in Islam there is a science called kalam which is concerned with such things and expands on their details
👽💗🙌🏽
HTML
how to make losers
I haven't watched the video yet but I'm excited to see what this has to do with it
Axioms do not make sense. Essence is where he made half of his mistakes. You can not equate a property of a thing to the thing itself. Because if writing is the essence of all pens then writing must be writing's property. Writing as an entity will have its own properties which is not pens' property. Essence does not make sense to me. The entire structure is nonsense. Positivity is not absolute it depends on the context. Coffee being hot in summer is not positive.
Logicism is akin to Luther and Calvin's predestination, or so I think. I think it's nonsense. Logic doesn't prove anything.
It also proves that you need a life
Childish....yipes: this guy doesn't understand Leibniz' law....then denies the proof is Gödel's😂: hilarious!
Lmao this proof is a load of barnacles, imagine being this good at maths but instead of becoming a cancer researcher or something you write a bunch of books and claim god is real with psychotic ramblings and convoluted analogies.
I have to say, your mischaracterization of the G0d in the Bible reflects an elementary understanding of the Bible. Sincerely
The problem is that God has by definition only positive properties. It will be exting to construct a similar proof (based also on modal logic) that God do not exist.
There are some bizarre inconsistencies in this presentation. Firstly, there is his apparent obsession with the Churchian superstition that God and Jesus are one and the same. It was a good point where he showed that they are not (11:54), but he keeps bringing it up even though they have nothing to do with each other in this context. Later he says (15:15): "You are either 100% good or you are essentially bad - rotten to the core". How does he draw this conclusion??? It seems very emotionally loaded and hyperbolic. I dont see that everything that is not 100% good has to be 100% bad. Rather inconsistent given his reasoning to this point. Then he goes into comparing green and yellow as essences of pencils, but those are not inherently positive properties, they are simply personal preferences, irrelevant to the function of a pencil. Under Theorem 3, he proves that x being Godlike means immortality, but how does he do that when all he does is show that y being Godlike also means immortality? Obviously if its true for one its true for all, but it being true for all does not prove it is true for one. Circular reasoning... All in all, a complete mess of an analysis. His foundations are no better than the ones he accuses Godel of contriving. I must say, however, I loved the nod to Monty Pythons Flying Circus (20:20)!!
Facetiousness is allowed in discussions like this, for the sake of levity. It doesn't undermine his point, particularly when there are those who use the argument to bolster their own deity, to the exclusion of others.
@@rsm3t His facetiousness addresses a matter that is not related to this discussion, and so becomes a distraction, not levity. He should have given a context for it. And there is only one God. Easily provable through mathematical logic.
@@pathfinder1273 That is an unproven claim. Did you watch the video?
@@rsm3t Yeah, I watched it. Whats your point? You think this video is the only thing that deals with proofs of Gods existence?
@@pathfinder1273 You're being combative.
Godel's "Theorem"
Godel's "Theorem" is a complete farce and absolutely trivial.
Godel assigns a unique number to all the symbols in real numbers via the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra: e.g., the syntactical symbols "+", "-", "x" (multiplication) as well as the actual numbers and powers (e.g. 3^2).
By his criteria, a "proof" consists of a tautology on each side of the equal sign.
At first, one might think the statement "3 + 4 = 7" is a "proof", since it can be reduced to a sum of units on either side.
But that would be a contradiction, according to Godel, because "3 + 4" has a different Godel Number than "7". So the only "proofs" for Godel are G(wff) = G(wff); any other statement is a contradiction by Godel Number. NOte that this characterization is not restricted to Wwff's: the equality is also true for gibberish n the metalanguage.
By that criterion, all systems comprised of symbols (wffs or not) can be proved as true or false, but not both. Even gibberish is true, provided their Godel numbers match.
And who decides that the Godel Numbers are equal? I do, since you are probably a figment of my imagination... :) TRUST me :)
I call it a giant twittering machine built on nothing,
see my pdfs on physicsdiscussionforum dot org
Remember, you read it here first... :)