Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem:
The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century
In 1931, Kurt Gödel delivered a devastating blow to the mathematicians of his time
In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed.
Gödel’s discovery not only applied to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge. It has truly earth-shattering implications.
Oddly, few people know anything about it.
Allow me to tell you the story.
Mathematicians love proofs. They were hot and bothered for centuries, because they were unable to PROVE some of the things they knew were true.
So for example if you studied high school Geometry, you’ve done the exercises where you prove all kinds of things about triangles based on a list of theorems.
That high school geometry book is built on Euclid’s five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody’s figured out a way to prove them.
Yes, it does seem perfectly reasonable that a line can be extended infinitely in both directions, but no one has been able to PROVE that. We can only demonstrate that they are a reasonable, and in fact necessary, set of 5 assumptions.
Towering mathematical geniuses were frustrated for 2000+ years because they couldn’t prove all their theorems. There were many things that were “obviously” true but nobody could figure out a way to prove them.
In the early 1900′s, however, a tremendous sense of optimism began to grow in mathematical circles. The most brilliant mathematicians in the world (like Bertrand Russell, David Hilbert and Ludwig Wittgenstein) were convinced that they were rapidly closing in on a final synthesis.
A unifying “Theory of Everything” that would finally nail down all the loose ends. Mathematics would be complete, bulletproof, airtight, triumphant.
In 1931 this young Austrian mathematician, Kurt Gödel, published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible.
Gödel’s discovery was called “The Incompleteness Theorem.”
If you’ll give me just a few minutes, I’ll explain what it says, how Gödel discovered it, and what it means – in plain, simple English that anyone can understand.
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”
You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But they’re all built on Euclid’s 5 postulates
| Stated in Formal Language:
Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.” The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness. Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.) Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete. Syllogism: 1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete 2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system 3. Therefore the universe is incomplete |
which are clearly true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.
You can draw a circle around a bicycle but the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.
Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. Any system of logic or numbers that mathematicians ever came up with will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language or philosophy.
And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe.
Gödel created his proof by starting with “The Liar’s Paradox” — which is the statement
“I am lying.”
“I am lying” is self-contradictory, since if it’s true, I’m not a liar, and it’s false; and if it’s false, I am a liar, so it’s true.
So Gödel, in one of the most ingenious moves in the history of math, converted the Liar’s Paradox into a mathematical formula. He proved that any statement requires an external observer.
No statement alone can completely prove itself true.
His Incompleteness Theorem was a devastating blow to the “positivism” of the time. Gödel proved his theorem in black and white and nobody could argue with his logic.
Yet some of his fellow mathematicians went to their graves in denial, believing that somehow or another Gödel must surely be wrong.
He wasn’t wrong. It was really true. There are more things than are true than you can prove.
A “theory of everything” – whether in math, or physics, or philosophy – will never be found. Because it is impossible.
OK, so what does this really mean? Why is this super-important, and not just an interesting geek factoid?
Here’s what it means:
- Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
- All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
- You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
- Reasoning inward from a larger circle to a smaller circle is “deductive reasoning.”
Example of a deductive reasoning:
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal
- Reasoning outward from a smaller circle to a larger circle is “inductive reasoning.”
Examples of inductive reasoning:
1. All the men I know are mortal
2. Therefore all men are mortal
1. When I let go of objects, they fall
2. Therefore there is a law of gravity that governs falling objects
Notice than when you move from the smaller circle to the larger circle, you have to make assumptions that you cannot 100% prove.
For example you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time. You cannot prove that the universe is rational. You can only observe that mathematical formulas like E=MC^2 do seem to perfectly describe what the universe does.
Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. These laws rest on an assumption that the universe is logical and based on fixed discoverable laws.
You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.
(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws.)
Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):
- There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
- The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.7 billion years time
- The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You don’t need to know math to do addition – you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)
- The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
- Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
- If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.
- Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
- Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.
We can apply the same inductive reasoning to the origin of information:
- In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3.5 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.
- The information had to come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time
- All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.
- Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.
In other words when we add information to the equation, we conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite and immaterial, it is also conscious.
Isn’t it interesting how all these things sound suspiciously similar to how theologians have described God for thousands of years?
So it’s hardly surprising that 80-90% of the people in the world believe in some concept of God. Yes, it’s intuitive to most folks. But Gödel’s theorem indicates it’s also supremely logical. In fact it’s the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.
The person who proudly proclaims, “You’re a man of faith, but I’m a man of science” doesn’t understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge!
Interesting aside…
If you visit the world’s largest atheist website, Infidels, on the home page you will find the following statement:
“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”
If you know Gödel’s theorem, you know that all logical systems must rely on something outside the system. So according to Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem, the Infidels cannot be correct. If the universe is logical, it has an outside cause.
Thus atheism violates the laws of reason and logic.
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem definitively proves that science can never fill its own gaps. We have no choice but to look outside of science for answers.
The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a rational, scientific model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.
Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.
Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. It’s been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved it.
No time in the history of mankind has faith in God been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by science and mathematics.
Perry Marshall
“Without mathematics we cannot penetrate deeply into philosophy.
Without philosophy we cannot penetrate deeply into mathematics.
Without both we cannot penetrate deeply into anything.”
-Leibniz
“Math is the language God wrote the universe in.”
Further reading:
“Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel” by Rebecca Goldstein – fantastic biography and a great read
A collection of quotes and notes about Gödel’s proof from Miskatonic University Press
Formal description of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem on Wikipedia
Science vs. Faith on CoffeehouseTheology.com
Information Theory: “If you can read this, I can prove God exists”
Perry, it still looks to me as though several assumptions are being made. For instance, this topic is called “Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem”.
It’s not Godel’s Incompleteness LAW. It’s a theorem. So, even though it describes what we might not know about something else….the fact that it’s a theorem says that we can’t 100% know for sure that Godel’s perspective is right.
Take the first line: “Draw a circle around anything and you must go outside that circle to explain it.” That is certainly true with bicycles and gravity…..but just as you mentioned that the sun might NOT come up tomorrow (and that is taken on faith), it’s equally possible that Godel’s theorem doesn’t apply to everything.
For instance, you stated that — if we draw a circle around the Universe (or all the possible Universes) — “there has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove”
That’s not necessarily true. We might not even need to assume it. It’s quite possible that drawing a circle around everything all the known universes would include a perfect explanation and provide a Single Unifying Law.
“The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.8 billion years time
The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself”. — Again, this is assumptive. How do you know that it cannot explain itself? This would only be a true statement if we actually had all the knowledge about the Universe (which we don’t).
“Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless.” There is nothing outside the circle. By any standard definition of “universe” or “universes”, if it exists, you’ve drawn a circle around it. It’s bad math to say “Draw a circle around all the known universes” and then to refer to something outside the universe. If there were something outside the circle, you would have drawn the circle to include it!
We can go on and on…but (with respect) this doesn’t seem to be a logical argument. It seems to be an argument based on certain presuppositions. And I’m not saying that’s good, bad, right or wrong….just that this argument has too many assumptions to conclude that there’s no possibility of a Unifying Theory.
Tony,
If Gödel can be shown to be wrong, then you have something to stand on.
80 years have gone by and no one has demonstrated a flaw in Gödel’s logic.
If Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem is true, then everything in my article directly and logically follows. Specifically, if we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and label it “Universe” then according to Incompleteness, there has to be something outside the universe that caused it.
If Gödel’s argument is logical, then my argument is also logical.
You are invited to demonstrate a flaw in Gödel’s logic if you can. And I will certainly be happy to post that argument here on my blog.
Perry Marshall
“I am lying.” Before I can lie I have to exist, and not only exist but conceive of myself. To conceive of myself I must split “me” as the subject that knows whether I am lying or not, from the “me” as an “object” that is either lying or not lying. That split is an artifice of the mind – reality is not split. It just “is”. That reality is not outside the circle of “me” as the subject, or “me” as the object that may or may not be lying. The perception of intelligence is merely the illusion of “self” as separate from reality. It is a trick of the mind.
All perception is the splitting of reality into a subject and an object.
Maybe you want to define god as the indivisible sum of all that is real? A bit superfluous, but it has it’s uses.
Steve,
A sum is divisible, so we can’t define God that way. We do have to define God as indivisible. God is one.
I like your explanation of perception. If we define God as self-aware, then we automatically invoke a splitting like what you refer to. Which is where the Trinity comes from. Self, expression of self, and self-understanding (Father / Son = WORD / Holy Spirit).
If you like my explanation of perception god cannot be self aware. I prefer god is just reality. This is my justification for my atheism.
Full awareness is to be one with reality, one with god, and the self disappears. As a self we use science to explore objective reality and spiritual practice to explore the subjective reality. Both are lies, but by knowing the lies the truth is revealed. You cannot know it and survive, there is no split. You cannot know reality as there is no knower.
IF there is no knower, then how do you KNOW that “you cannot know reality” and how do you KNOW that “there is no knower?”
I completely agree with Tony Rush that some ridiculous assumptions are being made on this page. I do not for a second doubt that the Incompleteness Theorem, if not necessarily true, is thus far unproven, and I cannot disprove it. The flaw that occurs on this page is not your explanation of the theorem, but the conclusions that are drawn are logically inconsistent. Using a complicated theorem as a premise for your logically flawed conclusions may be the simple result of over ambition.
Second, in your antagonistic response to a logical challenge to your authority, you commit many logical fallacies. First, despite the fact that Godel had nothing to do with the construction of your illogical conclusions, you seem to label him as one of your supporters. And, even if he was a suporter, the fact that you are discussing a distinct theorem means that his association does absolutely nothing to bolster your argument.
Also, you seem to have trouble understanding the concept of Infinity. The human brain has trouble understanding such a concept, and tends to limit Infinity to simply a very large finite number. You state, in your article, that the universe is finite. This is untrue, as it is proven that it is constantly expanding, and that it is already infinite in size. Uni- means one. There is absolutely nothing else. So, a circle cannot be drawn around it. You cannot create a circle that is larger than the largest. A circle is finite, but a universe is not. And even if the scientific understanding of the universe was as you declare it to be, as finite in nature, your conclusions would still be illogical. You say the universe is finite, and if the understanding of the universe is the encompassment of all things, material and immaterial, then there could be nothing outside of it.
Also, in your list of material things that would be inside the biggest possible circle, you include time. Time is not material. Its nature is essentially beyond human understanding. Why could time not be the ultimate controller, the 4th dimension that causes the universe to have orderly structure? Godel was a brilliant mathematician, but his flaw was his theology. Even for a believer in God, he was unusually pious for a mathematician. In an attempt to balance his strict theology with his far reaching mathematics, Godel ended up stretching his theorems to a realm they could not reach, which degraded his arguments. You are amplifying Godel’s mistakes. There will never be a logically sound proof of Divine Existence, because that belief defies logic, especially when Divine Existence is limited by the strict religious sense of the concept. I personally do not believe in God in the religious sense, but have no problem with accepting the fact that people do believe in God. If they manage to get something out of it, then more power to them. But when theologians attempt to bring logic and mathematics into the picture, they are defying the physical extent of the human understanding. Coupling that with your personal logical fallibility makes this page a logical failure.
1. All the mainstream scientific literature I have ever found says the universe is finite. When you said the universe is expanding you contradicted your own statement that it is infinite. Please provide empirical support for your claim that the universe is infinite.
2. I do not define the universe as the encompassment of all things material and immaterial. I define it as all observable matter, energy, space and time.
3. You ask, “Why could time not be the ultimate controller, the 4th dimension that causes the universe to have orderly structure?” It’s not my job to disprove your conjectures. Perhaps you could describe why and how time could be the ultimate controller. I await your explanation.
4. Please elaborate on Gödel’s mistakes.
5. You said, “There is absolutely nothing else.” Prove it.
6. It’s rather telling that almost every atheist who debates me here is anonymous or operates under a pseudonym. What are y’all afraid of?
Perry said: “We do have to define God as indivisible.
I like your explanation of perception. If we define God as self-aware, then we automatically invoke a splitting like what you refer to. Which is where the Trinity comes from. Self, expression of self, and self-understanding (Father / Son = WORD / Holy Spirit).”
God is both indivisible and splittable? This would seem to be a contradiction.
Dictionary definition of split: to divide into distinct parts.
God is Love.
Love is indivisible. This is why God is indivisible, because God is love.
Self, expression of self, and self-understanding in a context of perfect love know no division. Jesus said, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”
Let me build you a universe that proves you don’t need anything “outside” in terms of assumptions.
Imagine a fishbowl. Inside the fishbowl lives a little goldfish. Now, the goldfish can measure it’s lifespan, it can develop a philosophy on life, etc… Furthermore, it can measure the extent of it’s universe, the size of the fishbowl, it can measure the composition of everything inside it’s universe, the oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc…
Now, for our purposes, erase the reality we perceive, outside of the fishbowl. The fish still exists within it’s universe, the outside world doesn’t need to exist for the inside world to exist (yes, you’ll argue the fishbowl and water, etc… had to come from somewhere, but that’s not the point of the argument, the point is that I can measure my universe without requiring anything on the outside of it). And, just like the fish we exist within our fishbowl universe, and there is nothing outside of it.
Now, I can make ‘assumptions’ regarding where my universe came from, but that is my human nature to try and put things in perspective. The universe could care less about my perspective.
This is the whole problem with your argument (and Godel’s), it is based upon perspective, human perspective through mathematics and logic. Worst thing we do as humans is when we validate our logic with mathematics to ‘prove’ our perspectives.
We don’t know if the universe ‘began’ with a big bang, it’s just the best ‘theory’ we have based on observations. Furthermore, even if the current visible universe did begin with a big bang, that does not mean the universe has not existed in other forms before and even without time (since time is theorized to have been created with the big bang). So, in theory, the universe, in some state or other, could be infinite in age and have no beginning or ending. That being the case, if it has no beginning, than a creator become wholly unnecessary.
Thank you.
If reason and logic are not to be used to prove the superiority of one perspective over another, then what are they to be used for?
According to what specific theory can the universe be of infinite age? Any such theory I’m aware of has to disregard the phenomenon of entropy, since an infinitely old series of universes would be cold and dead by now.
I do agree that if you discard reason and logic then a creator does become unnecessary. In fact one of the subtler themes in this thread is, if you posit that the universe is irrational then atheism can be a valid conclusion.
If you prefer that, it’s fine – let’s just be clear that you have chosen to embrace irrationality as the dominant lens for understanding the world.
I choose to believe that the universe is rational, discoverable, measurable, and describable in mathematical terms. I believe that the discoveries and principles of science are real and not an illusion. This necessarily makes the universe incomplete and this is one of the many reasons I believe in God.
Slow down a bit, first, I never said reason and logic are NOT to be used. I only stated that the “worst thing we do as humans is when we validate our logic with mathematics to ‘prove’ our perspectives.” Key to this statement is that we are not using reason and logic to determine what the “evidence” shows us. Instead, we take a perspective we want to believe, than use reason and logic to try and prove that perspective.
Second, there is no theory that currently even tries to explain what existed before the big bang. However, since “time itself” was created with the big bang, than by ‘reason and logic’ whatever form the universe existed in before than (singularity for example) would have existed outside of time, and the only way to even remotely explain that is to use the term ‘infinite’.
So no, I am not disregarding reason and logic, and I hope my further clarifications will make my explanations easier to understand. By reason and logic, a creator is unnecessary. Through faith we embrace a creator. A lack of faith cannot be replaced by reason and logic, it’s like a bandaid over a mortal wound, it simply will not heal.
Greg,
My position is precisely what you said: the only way to even remotely explain that is to use the term ‘infinite’.
That which is outside of space and time is infinite. And indivisible. I believe that everything I stated in my article is entirely logical, and that which logic tells us has to be outside the universe bears a striking resemblance to God.
Yes, faith is necessary. In some ways that’s what inductive reasoning is. I hope I have shown that all conclusions require faith, but that faith in God is a much shorter leap than the alternatives.
Atheists have a belief system. It is not just BASED on “no intelligence” is necessary for the creation of the universe and life.
Atheists have to insist on something further: it is IMPERATIVE that “no intelligent cause” have created the universe and life, now, or ever, whether forward or backward in time.
To be an Atheist you must INSIST that there is NOT an immensely powerful Mind or Being responsible for Creation — this Universe and its life.
So, first of all, to become an Atheist you must adopt and enforce a psychological prejudice that systematically resists from logically following any theorem as to why an intelligent greater being might exist.
So people who say they are Atheists are True Believers. They do not scientifically or philosophically allow any notions or explanations to the contrary.
Some people who say they are Atheists are simply philosophically lazy. It keeps them from having to get up off their mental couch and actually investigate TRUTH wherever the quest may take them.
But atheists, to offer a construction of a universe that does not include God or some supreme creative Being, must first CREATE their thought bubble.
Even the “argument” of an atheist requires a thought to form until it becomes a mind creation that an atheist must then express in a pre-determined code that we will necessarily decode before we can examine the atheist’s construction.
Greg, you propose a fish in a fish bowl. Never mind how the fish got there. Never mind how the water got there. Never mind how the bowl was filled with water. Never mind how the artificially crafted bowl got there.
And then, in the final conceit, say, in essence, let’s pretend WE outside the bowl do not exist. Well, the “WE” outside of the bowl who supplied the water, the fish, and the bowl were absolutely NECESSARY.
Our viewpoint and relative position would have been God’s position. But you say “And, just like the fish we exist within our fishbowl universe, and there is nothing outside of it.”
But your “example” can only exist IF we allow you to PRETEND —- shhhh, don’t tell anybody our secret— that nothing, by necessity, exists outside of that bowl.
And this is where science always must necessarily STOP for an Atheist.
All atheists are the little fishes swimming blindly in this bowl. As soon as science and math provide some LOGICAL reasons to investigate outside of the bowl, the atheist fishes must retreat to their hiding places under plastic castles.
I’m sorry, but you don’t understand Atheism or the purpose of science. I don’t pretend to know if there is or is not an intelligent designer. What I do know is, at this point, I have never seen evidence to support such an idea. Until that evidence arrives, I will continue to focus on learning things that are based in evidence and proof. I have no personal issue against a God or bias for not wanting there to be a God. I do however have a bias against drawing unfounded conclusions and drawing assumptions either for or against such a possibility. I take the default position of pondering all the options and waiting for evidence while focusing on what I can learn and what I can reason with the information available.
To add to my last post… the vast majority of what you posted would be fair criticisms of people that are “certain there is no god”. Equally, it is fair of people that are “certain there is a God”. Both have a fundamental bias towards their pre-existing beliefs, and are suffering from the same confirmation bias rather than looking for objective evidence.
Your criticisms regarding other people being “philosophically lazy” is fairly revealing. Stereotyping others, especially with a comment that could easily apply to people that agree with your ideas, is simply destructive. There are plenty of smart people on both sides of this debate… unfortunately, many are focused on proving ideas that simply cannot be proven at this time.
Rather than start with a result and find ways to prove it… why not start from the default position of uncertainty, and focus on gathering objective information to see where it takes you?
Rick Kettner,
You reply–
“Rather than start with a result and find ways to prove it… why not start from the default position of uncertainty, and focus on gathering objective information to see where it takes you?”
Unfortunately, believers and nonbelievers will always be at an impasse despite all logic. As a non-believer you start and end at the same place, year after year, you don’t know where you have been, you don’t know where you are going, and you lead yourself back into the same circular path in the woods. The footprints you see are always your own.
What God has said, to those that believe and take him at his word, “Start here, travel here, end here. I am the Alpha and the Omega. The Beginning and the End.”
You will waste your life pretending to be objective. Claiming yourself to be objective.
Rick, you sound very reasonable. Many reasonable people see this as one of their chief virtues.
My own experiences, direct miraculous experiences with the spirit of God who came down on me in seconds and spread through me such a gushing overflow of joy and UNDERSTANDING settle the question for me FOREVER.
What happened in that minute, with no drug but a sincere questing prayer directed not to some spirit, but with all respect and humility to the God who has named himself Jehovah, then continued to overwhelm me hour after hour. It was beyond nature and beyond pedantic discussions and forums and comments. I received what are classically called “revelations”.
The mind and spirit of God, not an Allah, not an elephant god, literally came inside me into my very core being and filled me in a split second with such enormous revelations and joy, JOY. He even gave me knowledge and opened my eyes to see so clearly how dense I was, how blind, how clueless my own intellect. So much so that these discussions here are somewhat vexing.
The God who came to me and revealed himself to me was so far, far, inexorably far above mans’ reasoning that it makes this whole forum of “this and that and he said and he did not and yes he did” laughable in a way.
Except that what Perry is trying to say over and over and over is that it is NOT ILLOGICAL to consider the existence of God. And this is important for you to know and believe. Even smart people such as Perry Marshall have no problem stating WHY they believe what they believe in the face of so many clamoring objections.
To people such as Perry and yes, me, the objections we hear are so patently ludicrous when, for instance, you observe the blatantly, STUPENDOUSLY OBVIOUS pre-designed, pre-coded genetic instructions inside any, not just man, but ANY life form.
To Perry and to me it is screamingly outrageously a NO-BRAINER as to how scientifically and mathematically the case states itself. The case STATES ITSELF in no uncertain terms that the processes of life and reproduction just involving DNA alone are scientifically irrefutable.
Why so many otherwise “reasonable” scientists come to a screeching halt and run shrieking from the vast and unmistakable logical, mathematical, scientific EVIDENCE that our whole planet has been encoded internally with an unspeakably sophisticated and ELEGANT (“Godlike”) LANGUAGE.
When you look at the encoding of DNA you are physically looking at a language that was created in the mind of God. Not in the “mind” of his creation, but in his own mind. You are LOOKING at the inside of God’s mind, not fancifully, but in a very direct peephole into just a tiny part of his Genius.
Perry has given you over and over the reasons why you HAVE to believe and accept this. You HAVE TO not because Perry insists, but because science and math and common sense converge when you truly understand all of the pre-conditions for DNA and how it functions.
But, what you “reasonable” people don’t understand is that MORE UNDERSTANDING scientifically will occur when you accept God as the beginning, not the end of your knowledge.
If you are truly “objective” then you would have allowed the “hypothesis” that there is an Intelligent Design long enough, as you say “—to see where it takes you-”
The truly objective person would have said, okay, let me start my investigation WITH the “theorem” that God is responsible for the things I see.
For the next year I will take my examinations down that path with scientific rigor.
Few scientists, apparently, are brave enough to buck the trend of their peers and follow such an enquiry to its honest end (and beginning).
I’m not saying it is illogical to consider the possibility of a “God”. However, there is absolutely no reason to consider it above other possibilities. We simply do not have the evidence to settle on either side of this equation yet. I’ve looked closely at the different possibilities and cannot see how anyone could conclude either way with honest certainty. Pretending to be able to validate such a view is a result of knowingly or unknowingly engaging in confirmation bias through selective inductive reasoning.
“The truly objective person would have said, okay, let me start my investigation WITH the “theorem” that God is responsible for the things I see.”
This statement betrays your overwhelming bias towards one specific option. There is no reason to start with “God” over another possible option other than to want to confirm an existing bias. I grew up religious and have no real issue with religion besides the fact it simply claims to know something it can’t. I’ve also considered the alternatives and see no reason to assume there is no God.
Therefore, our only practical move is to further human understanding within an honest framework of knowledge. Simply flaming the fire of a propaganda war where both sides are pretending to know the unknowable is a destructive waste of time.
Rick,
Thank you for your last reply.
Allow me to focus on two incredible statements you have made :
1) “I’m not saying it is illogical to consider the possibility of a “God”. However, there is absolutely no reason to consider it above other possibilities.”
2) “There is no reason to start with “God” over another possible option other than to want to confirm an existing bias.”
Rick, pretty much from what I have read, seen, and heard over the past few decades, in a “scientific” “discussion” the DEFAULT Starting and Ending point is that there is NO God involved.
That there is no God and no Intelligent Creator seems to be the default mantra when such matters are discussed.
Hundreds of thousands of scientists and physicists and mathematicians and philosophers have been turned out of our leading higher institutions premising their rigorous scientific methods that, of course, as we “all know” a God element does not factor into what we think we see.
This IS the BIAS, Rick. And you know this quite well.
In fact, when scientists nowadays discuss “possibilities”, as you put it, ALL of their “possibilities” necessarily, right out of the gate, before the concept is pursued, specifically, if not outright states, more often accepted as implicit (unspoken) conditions, that God need not apply.
Nowadays much of science and math are “mind models”. Thought experiments. Exactly that. Papers up the ying yang are regularly published and treated as revelations of the universe that are nothing more than some mathematician’s or scientist’s “creative conjecturing”. Most of them do not stand the test of scrutiny as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.
And so science ranges far and wide, mathematics ranges far and wide, looking for explanations.
But, studiously ignoring that right here on earth the clues are smacking us in the face if a true scientist will accept them (without this anti-God BIAS) that some one very like a God left his fingerprints and even his thoughts and his designs imprinted indelibly into this creation.
And you supposedly have followed this whole forum and yet you make this preposterous claim — “There is no reason to start with “God” over another possible option other than to want to confirm an existing bias.”
You have successfully framed your OWN BIAS, Rick.
“NO REASON … other than to want to confirm an existing bias”.
Stunning.
So that is what scientific inquiry is to you, Rick. Just as I suspected. Then you can not truly believe in science, Rick. Since to you it is inextricably and automatically, to begin and end with, simply an exercise “..to confirm an existing bias.”
Yes, and you are right.
This is EXACTLY how science is being practiced today.
That is Perry Marshall’s point.
@DavidH
I’m sorry, but you seem to have completely misquoted and misunderstood my point. You make the assumption that me stating “there is absolutely no reason to consider it above other possibilities” and “There is no reason to start with “God” over another possible option other than to want to confirm an existing bias” as asserting that I think other possibilities should be considered first. That is not what I said. I feel both should be considered, but neither should be asserted or assumed over the other.
“Rick, pretty much from what I have read, seen, and heard over the past few decades, in a “scientific” “discussion” the DEFAULT Starting and Ending point is that there is NO God involved.”
While I’m beginning to reach the conclusion that most people in this debate can’t imagine not fighting for one side over the other – my position is neutral. I do not have a bias against God or a bias for God. I have yet to come across an argument that makes the case for a God stronger than the case for no God – or vice versa. Furthermore, I see no practical advantage in forming a “belief” around either view, and even if I did – such whims do not advance understanding or knowledge.
Rick,
It is a facile game to “debate” with the standard insistence that you have been continually “misunderstood”. And by your doing so you also glide right past your own statements which you make so clearly and in English.
First of all, to contend that your position is “neutral” is sophistry–superficially plausible, but a generally fallacious method of reasoning. A neutral position is neutral. A neutral position does not state, and I quote you, “Rather than start with a result and find ways to prove it… why not start from the default position of uncertainty, and focus on gathering objective information to see where it takes you?”
That all sounds reasonable but you say this as if the vast majority of science done today is not already quite CERTAIN. The “uncertainty” you speak of is only used today to describe theoretical posturings that have already negated, from the outset, any quest to see the face of God, as it were.
Calling a dog a cat never creates the vocal mechanics for the dog to Meow. Rick, I did not even make the claim that a person should START with accepting God as the reason for his or her scientific inquiry. I assume that this is what people are routinely DOING anyway.
I am simply saying, why NOT consider the alternative? How about a few precious moments considering how science would progress if you started looking at the Intelligent Design as having some important answers to your riddles.
You say, Rick, “Rather than start with a result and find ways to prove it..” But that ignores the present reality in science, does it not?
Scientists have had hundreds of years now, Rick, to start with the results we all have readily at hand. And they have spent hundreds of years relentlessly, feverishly, trying to prove their suppositions. And, as you must know, Rick, not a single scientist has PROVEN his or her supposition that life and the universe simply started on its own with no intelligent causation.
In fact, it has been accepted as “no longer under discussion” in major scientific circles that science already has the basic and immutable “facts”. That SIMPLY BECAUSE WE ARE ALL HERE IS IN ITSELF PROOF THAT A GOD IS NOT NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN OUR POSITION.
My position is not neutral. Perry’s position is not neutral. It is you who have wandered in here and professed neutrality on “solving” the questions at hand.
But this is all sophistry with nothing accomplished. Perry has stated that there are scientific reasons to investigate further. Every atheistic and agnostic and “neutral” argument to the contrary cannot counter the evidence that science still has many things to learn and to discover.
Who are the scientists so bold, so brave, and so open, so scientific, truly scientific, that they will step into the fray and say, Send me. I will go and explore and not exclude the scientific possibility that an intelligent designer, a God, if you will, has written his clues into the Universe and that they are still open to be read. In my open inquiries of these mysteries I will not exclude their possible source, no matter the outrage and scorn my discoveries may provoke.
I don’t suggest I’ve been continually misunderstood. I suggested you are intentionally misinterpreting my points as a method to distract from what I am actually saying.
“A neutral position does not state, and I quote you, “Rather than start with a result and find ways to prove it… why not start from the default position of uncertainty, and focus on gathering objective information to see where it takes you?”
Apparently you want to make this a semantics argument about your definition of “neutral” instead of making the obvious interpretation based on my next sentence “I do not have a bias against God or a bias for God”. By “neutral” I mean – I do not prefer one outcome over another, only that it is based on sound logic and doesn’t face obvious contradictions. I do not accept arguments that are flawed or can reach directly contradictory inferences using the same selective inductive reasoning.
“I did not even make the claim that a person should START with accepting God as the reason for his or her scientific inquiry.”
“The truly objective person would have said, okay, let me start my investigation WITH the “theorem” that God is responsible for the things I see.”
It seems you aren’t keeping up with the statements you are making. You suggested it is “objective” to start with “God”. I don’t know what your unique definition of the word “biased” is, but that appears to be biased to me. The fact that you do not recognize and admit such a bias is unfortunate.
“Scientists have had hundreds of years now, Rick, to start with the results we all have readily at hand. And they have spent hundreds of years relentlessly, feverishly, trying to prove their suppositions. And, as you must know, Rick, not a single scientist has PROVEN his or her supposition that life and the universe simply started on its own with no intelligent causation.”
Once again, I suppose I must re-clarify my position that I don’t assert this has been proven – your arguments are starting to sound like a broken record. I have repeatedly stated that I don’t believe we have proof in a “no God” theory, just as we do not have proof in a “God” theory.
There are very strong arguments to suggest a God is not needed in the equation, just as there are arguments that suggest a God is needed. For a reason that is beyond me, you and Perry seem more than willing to bypass the prime mover argument, and then somehow bring God back into the picture as if the rules that would prevent our direct evolution don’t apply to him. If he could exist forever or evolve in a natural way, why couldn’t the direct building blocks (laws, codes, forces) that guided our evolution have done the same? Whatever logical “trap door” you use to bring Gods existence back into the your argument of the origin of life – must also be considered for our own direct evolution. If you argue that God existed forever – you should also consider the idea that the fundamental rules of nature that lead to our direct evolution could have also existed forever. Perry and I have argued this back and forth in great detail… and I am awaiting his latest reply as we continue to discuss it.
Your statement that “Scientists have had hundreds of years now…” seems to ignore the vast amount of progress that was made and is still being made. We are understanding significantly more year over year, and for some reason you suggest the scientific community has been wasting their time. Would you prefer that we didn’t decode the human genome, that we didn’t gain a further understanding about evolution, that we didn’t advance medical technology, or that we couldn’t speed up learning and knowledge through technological advancements like the computers we are using to communicate these ideas/arguments from different parts of the world?
If you choose to simply assert that God exists through flawed selective inductive reasoning that bypasses fundamental arguments like the primum movens, go for it. However, don’t pretend it is based on sound logic or that we haven’t made significant advancements in understanding our origins since the days where man believed “God created us in 7 days, because it says so in the bible”.
“But this is all sophistry with nothing accomplished. Perry has stated that there are scientific reasons to investigate further. Every atheistic and agnostic and “neutral” argument to the contrary cannot counter the evidence that science still has many things to learn and to discover.”
This seems to insinuate I don’t want further investigation. I’ve made it clear that I am interested in keeping up with the latest information – that is the basis of my argument, that we still have much to learn. There is a dramatic difference between finding significant flaws in current theories and asserting we should stop learning all together. What statement did I make to even begin to suggest I was against further investigation?
Please stop taking a single word (in this case “neutral”), filtering it through your own definition, ignoring context, and then basing your entire reply around your selective interpretation that one word. It is a waste of time if you are going to intentionally ignore context. Assuming your next reply continues to distract from the actual topic being discussed, I really don’t see a need to continue this further with you. There are far better ways to make actual progress.
Rick,
Have you caught on that this forum is NOT NEUTRAL. There can NOT be two universes in which you and I and Perry live in simultaneously. One universe without causation (intelligently caused) and one with God, yes, the Christian Jehovah, who has already stated His case all He cares to at this time.
I have said several times that I, myself, am far from neutral. NO, there is no neutrality in what I claim is the Truth. Because of some definitely and persuasively powerful experiences that EXPANDED MY CONSCIOUSNESS I now see and perceive the universe in alignment with my faith, belief, and conviction, absolute conviction that God has proved Himself to me.
Now when I look at such things as the structure and design of DNA and read of Communication Theory I say, yes, OF COURSE. It is all so PLAIN and obvious.
So I look at your “neutrality” as, well, silliness. IF GOD exists then that is a HUGE thing to know. What is more important in any discussion of anything whatsoever than to know if God is behind everything we experience?
But you will argue that it is just as important to discover that God is NOT behind everything we experience.
Now ask yourself what are the consequences?
Suppose you are studying at Stanford and your crusty curmudgeon of a physics professor gives you homework for the weekend and says “If you can prove ‘X’ I will reward you with a Visa Platinum Card with a ten-billion dollar line of credit repaid in full every year, but if you decide to solve for ‘Y’ you get nothing but the satisfaction of knowing that I will give you an A for your time”.
Do you spend time in forums expressing your objectivity and neutrality over the issue?
Or do you drop everything and spend the same time solving for X for a fabulous credit line that will last forever?
So, the question is, Rick, is this not the most important question you have to settle for yourself before you take your last breath?
Is this not THE Question that we must all with haste, with deliberate urgency, settle and resolve for ourselves?
I will tell you why so many people are more concerned with professing an empty state of “neutrality” on this supremely important issue.
Into our consciousness, yours as well, Rick, is a deep dread and fear of the consequences. When we facilely skim over the evident arguments FOR a God in favor of saying “I am neutral” on this issue, we are responding to a train of logic that we have already walked and stored away for such forums and discussions as this.
What every scientist, mathematician, physicist, etc, knows intuitively is that if in his or her scientific pokings around he or she should accidentally stumble across another significant discovery that unmistakably by direct sight or statistical probability “strongly hints” that a superhuman power and intelligence set the universe and life in motion…. well, as they say, there would be hell to pay.
There is not a scientist, mathematician, physicist, or astronomer who relishes the idea of standing before the world’s media to announce the publishing of a scientific paper that conclusively proves or even strongly makes a case for a supreme causative intelligence at the foundation of the universe.
It is a fearsome nightmare to consider for so many scientists that they inwardly shudder at merely contemplating such a situation.
The train of logic is this, the boogeyman behind all of these forum discussions that assert “neutrality” in the search of truth– uh oh, now all of those nagging Christians are going to rise up self-righteously and claim that it is THEIR GOD who made the world.
These hypocritical Christians are going to have the last laugh, deride us mercilessly, and say, “See, we TOLD you so!”
I would rather remain “neutral” and shut my eyes and ears to any such ugly, humiliating fate. So let Perry prattle on about God this and proof that and Communication Theory. I will debate him but I would never wish the humiliation of agreeing with his position.
This negative consequences thing, if you will, is the most powerful motivator operating in atheistic and agnostic “debates”. It is a fierce thing to fear, that God might be proven. And such fear is more than capable of denying the existence of God towering over all.
I myself understand the fear and the dread of God raising His head above the waters and saying, “Boo, here I am!”
I have to confess that I would feel the same way if an Allah showed up on the scene and thundered out, “Did I not command you to KILL all the INFIDELS! Waste no more time!”
As a believer in the God Jehovah and his son, Yeshua, Jesus Christ, I take comfort in knowing that I have already had conversations with them, have already discerned their hearts in their words and the promises Jesus made regarding the world now and the world to come.
But, scientifically, mathematically I can not prove that I even believe, other than I say so. I cannot mathematically or scientifically prove that I have read the promises of Jesus and that I believe them as the Truth. I cannot mathematically or scientifically prove that I have, literally, literally, the Spirit of God within me.
All of the IMPORTANT things in life mysteriously vanish before Math and Scientific principles. No wonder that I accept that Math is INCOMPLETE.
Math is simply a tool to help humans construct what they must construct. The amazing thing to me is that as incomplete as Math may be, it already abundantly, generously TESTIFIES to an evident superhuman timeless all powerful intelligence.
But, I doubt God needed what we construe as “math” to create this universe.
Love that motivates my days and life has not one single formula that proves it even exists as a theory, let alone fact.
They will elevate the level of collisions at the Hadron Collider underneath Switzerland and France looking for the “God particle” and not discover love or faith or self-sacrifice or mercy.
These forums are but a diverting playground to keep yourselves busy proclaiming a “neutral, objective” viewpoint on the most important question you must answer soon.
IF a God is discovered then, yes, the odds are very very high that it is the same God who proclaimed, we believe, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
Which for you, should be the most exciting discovery of your life.
David,
Your tone is consistently abrasive and it’s not winning you any friends. I ask that you please be more respectful of everyone here.
I do believe that one can, at least in theory, approach this question from a neutral stance. At least on paper, we can try our very best to set our raging emotions aside and say, “I’m not sure one way or the other. But I want to find out where the evidence leads.”
If you believe the Bible then surely you have regard for Paul where he says in Romans, that God has made His divine nature and eternal power plain to everyone so that all are without excuse. For me, then, I believe that we can sit down and pencil it out, and starting from a neutral position clearly infer that God exists.
For a couple of years I really wasn’t sure about this. I came rather close to becoming an atheist myself.
My big moment of clarity came when I said, “OK If God does not exist, if atheism is true, then what else has to be true to make it all work?”
I realized that there would have to be design principles in biology that they never taught me in engineering school.
Darwinists say that Natural Selection is the only design principle that you need.
I thought they very well might be right. So I started hunting for a set of basic principles that would prove that to be true. That you really would eventually get eyes and ears and changes and DNA necessary to make that happen, by random copying errors and natural selection.
I found that there is no principle anywhere in engineering or science which shows that to be true. What I actually found was information entropy – that random accidents can only destroy information, and there’s nothing that natural selection can do about that. I found that cells use the same engineering principles human engineers use. That cells re-arrange their own DNA the same way advertisers re-arrange Google ads, in the war of natural selection.
I believe that if Rick is open to following the evidence where it leads, he’ll find there is ample evidence for design in the universe and the only reasonable inference is a transcendent source.
I’m in no rush and I’m not worried about it. Please give Rick space to explore and investigate.
“So, the question is, Rick, is this not the most important question you have to settle for yourself before you take your last breath?”
No, I think the question of life purpose, striving for personal growth and understanding, and resolving to be an honest and moral person (for the immediate and inherent benefits that result) is far more important. I have no fear that such a God would, if he exists, would punish me for my prudent, thoughtful, and logical approach to life. A thoughtful video on the subject is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iClejS8vWjo
“Is this not THE Question that we must all with haste, with deliberate urgency, settle and resolve for ourselves?”
No, nothing motivates me to jump to a conclusion without all the facts due to fear of hell or promise of heaven… for it is the very facts that will determine if either place even exist. If God does exist, he did not give us human intelligence for the purpose of discarding it in exchange for faith. My neutral position is not based in fear or in reaching a conclusion different than that of God… it’s merely out of uncertainty and seeking more information before reaching a definitive conclusion.
“I will tell you why so many people are more concerned with professing an empty state of “neutrality” on this supremely important issue.
Into our consciousness, yours as well, Rick, is a deep dread and fear of the consequences. When we facilely skim over the evident arguments FOR a God in favor of saying “I am neutral” on this issue, we are responding to a train of logic that we have already walked and stored away for such forums and discussions as this.”
I’m sorry you feel this is a giant conspiracy theory, where everyone seems to secretly “know” there is a God but is running from him. I understand that is the message repeated throughout some bible stories, but it’s unfortunately that these ideas live on. You can believe what you want about me, my motives, and my reasons for remaining neutral – however, only I know how completely wrong your stated interpretations really are. I can only assume much of the scientific community feels the same way, but that is for them to know. I wish I could be more convincing, because clearly you are not accepting my words of intention at face value.
“IF a God is discovered then, yes, the odds are very very high that it is the same God who proclaimed, we believe, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Which for you, should be the most exciting discovery of your life.”
I see absolutely no reason to reach this conclusion. First off, I have never seen such evidence to even remotely make this connection… even if we assume there is a God, there is no evidence he would be the Christian god, or that he would even be capable of interacting with us in any meaningful way. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I have little reason to want (specifically) the biblical version of God to exist or to be “excited” about such a discovery. I find the biblical teachings of morality to be appalling, the methods by which he commands “love” to be disgusting, and his message of altruism to be proven destructive to human progress and prosperity.
Is it possible for a God to transcend the biblical version and turn out to be a loving creator… yes, of course, but the bible gives us little reason to conclude that. If he turns out to be truly loving, I won’t need to chase after him or fear his punishment or to use flawed arguments in order to “prove” his existence and then worship him. Such ideas are silly and degrade the notion of a truly loving God that would likely be interested in a relationship with us regardless of our personal experiences, beliefs, and which religion we happened to be born into.
“If Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem is true, then everything in my article directly and logically follows. Specifically, if we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and label it “Universe” then according to Incompleteness, there has to be something outside the universe that caused it.”
Actually, Perry, by your own demonstration, Goedel’s theorem proves that we cannot prove the existence of God. For the record, I am a theist, I believe in God, but it’s faith not fact. Now allow me to demonstrate how you’ve shown that God is unprovable. Goedel’s theorem proves that you cannot prove anything outside of a “circle” from within the “circle”, including the veracity of the circle itself. The universe is finite, as is the largest possible “circle” we can draw. Which you yourself assert God exists outside of. Therefore, using every available (and provable!) law, axiom, and rule in our universe, we cannot ever prove the existence of God. Sorry.
An addendum to this (and to Godel’s theorem): to draw a circle around something implies that we know that something beyond it exists (i.e. bike and factory). How can we know to justify the existence of something if we do not know of anything outside its circle? I would venture to say that you cannot draw out the greatest circle you inhabit due to the fact that by being within that extent of existence, you don’t know how far it extends (defined in this case as an understanding of where one thing ends and another begins). If we had direct knowledge of a creator (like a bike having direct knowledge of the factory that made it), then we could draw a circle around ourselves, and the bike could draw a circle around itself and explain its own existence. However, this is not the case, and like the inanimate bike, we are locked within our circle, unaware of how far it stretches. This is essentially where Godel’s theorem breaks down. We cannot draw a circle around the known universe, namely because we are included in it and all that we know (and can draw on to explain what we see) IS the known universe.
QED
This is not a refutation of atheism or theism, it’s just a clarification of how we should interpret the Incompleteness Theorem.
You ask: “How can we know to justify the existence of something if we do not know of anything outside its circle?”
Gödel’s theorem says that if what is inside the circle is logical, there is necessarily something outside the circle. Gödel’s theorem justifies the ‘something’ that you refer to.
Perry, I’m not making this an issue of “right” or “wrong”. It’s simply a matter of workability.
Draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and label it “Universe” and you cannot definitively say that it is dependent on something else outside it. You can speculate that it might be….but there is where the line is drawn between theorem and law.
Simply put, we don’t have enough information to say emphatically that Godel’s theorem is true. That’s why it’s a theorem. We can point to multiple ways that it IS true. But, it still makes its own assumptions in matters that cannot be observably demonstrated.
Thanks for the dialogue!
Tony
A theorem is not the same as a theory. Gödel wrote a formal proof of his theorem. You can read his proof here:
On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems
This is why we have enough information to say emphatically that Gödel’s theorem is true. To say otherwise is to reject the very process of mathematics, proof and logic.
It seems to me that you’re applying logic ti everything but your own proofs.
Unless I misunderstand, Godel’s Theorem as you apply it boils down to your explanation of inductive reasoning, in that, you have to make assumptions in order to prove something.
My biggest issue with this is that, you cannot then prove your assumptions are any truer, because you have a never ending regression of assumptions. You have then, somehow, gone from Godel’s theorem which boils down to, nothing can be proven definitively, since all proofs are based on assumptions, to “proving” an existence of god. I miss that leap of logic.
Some of your assumptions seems incredibly flawed, for example your assumption “In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.” How is this the introduction of information? The genetic codes are written using chemicals and enzymes. Those chemicals are just bits of information as well, made up of individual molecules and elements. Are not those molecules predating the genetic code?
Take, for example, the classic argument for intelligent design. You come across a watch on a beach. You then make the assumption that someone must have created it, for in your experience you’ve never witnessed something so complex coalesce without intelligence creating it. But, and here is my central problem with your writing, how can you prove that assumption is true? And since you cannot do that without making another assumption, how can you prove the watch wasn’t coalesced, randomly, by nature and chaos?
How can you prove anything at all, from a theorem which states nothing can be proven without that outside observer, without some set of assumptions that may or not be true themselves.
Zach,
You did not read my original article closely enough. My actual words:
“The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.”
If you read my entire article very carefully you will see that I have made a 100% logical progression from Gödel’s theorem to an understanding that ultimately the universe and all logic inevitably regress back to ONE unprovable but necessary axiom. If I have made a leap of logic then I invite anyone to show me where it is.
The closest thing to a leap in logic is the INFERENCE that the laws of mathematics, and therefore also Gödel’s theorem, apply to the universe. I cannot prove this. But if you do not assume this, all of science itself comes apart at the seams. Every science experiment in modern times assumes the universe is mathematical. And if it is then Gödel’s theorem applies to the universe just as it applies to pure mathematics.
In other words I do not have the full authority of mathematical proof in saying this but I do have the full authority of science. If algebra, calculus, vectors, complex numbers and differential equations apply to the universe then so does incompleteness.
As for information theory and chemicals, once again you have not taken the time to read the referenced links. You will need to go to http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq and apprise yourself of information theory as it relates to biology. I am using the definition of Claude Shannon information which is based on a complete communication system. Chemicals alone do not contain any information at all according to the Shannon definition. You have to have encoder, code and decoder to have Shannon information.
All systems of encoder / code / decoder are created by conscious minds. No known exceptions.
Have you ever seen a watch coalesce randomly by nature and chaos?
Without making the same sort of unfounded presumption which you accuse me of, have you ever personally seen ANY machine of any kind coalesce randomly by nature and chaos? Any motor? Any pump? Any encoding / decoding system? Have you ever witnessed any such thing in your own personal experience? Ever?
David Hume allegedly overturned Paley’s watch argument by pointing out that the analogy between a living organism and a watch was flawed. Information theory and Shannon’s model of communication put Paley’s watch argument back on solid ground and overturn Hume’s argument. The following statement is the reason why:
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
If you can find one example of a naturally occurring code I’ll write you a check for $10,000. The specification for doing so is here: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/solve/
““The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.””
You didn’t read Goedel’s theory carefully enough. It is logically and mathematically impossible to construct a consistent model of the universe. Goedel’s theorem proves that any such model will either be incomplete or inconsistent. That is the very essence of the theorem. In fact, if you somehow manage to create a model of the universe that is consistent and complete, Goedel’s theorem shows us beyond all doubt that it is certainly and provably wrong.
Bob,
You didn’t read my statements carefully enough. I have not proven that God exists. I have inferred that God exists. How? By showing that the only way the universe can be consistent is to be incomplete. You get to decide between inconsistency and incompleteness. Which do you have more faith in? God, or irrationality?
Zach is right. Perry, perry, perry….. I appreciate the enthusiasm about Godel, he was an intelligent man and I do believe his theory to be correct. His logic flows very nicely from premise to conclusion. You, on the other hand, are a different story. From your very first premise, you contradicted yourself and then you followed with a set of valid but unsound arguments. You showed why inductive reason could not bring about a definitive answer and then you used it to definitely prove your point. That aside, you are logical, but the first premise is incorrect. You called the genetic code immaterial and symbolic. As mentioned by Zach, the code stems from enzymes, dna, and other molecules passing along information. Its not entered into the system from some higher being. Now that I look at your second point under your proof of a higher being,I see another flaw. Even if you assume your first step valid and sound, you can’t assume just because you don’t know something about the universe that it must stem from a higher power. We can still learn more about our universe and provide explanations to every immaterial source of information. Once we definitely know all about our universe and we are still left with something, which logically must stem from something outside the system, then we must look to something symbolic and immaterial. But Godel would need to be wrong in order for us to prove the entirety of our system from within the system and know all about our universe. So for your point, based on Godel’s point, to be on point, then Godel’s point would have to be off point, undermining your entire point. Get my point?
I used inductive reasoning to infer not prove my point. Because what I can prove is that the opposite conclusion demands an irrational universe.
I agree with your logic, Perry (and Godel’s), thanks for sharing.
Any assumptions that are made when discussing where the universe came from seem to me to be related to the law of causality…anything that begins to exist has a cause. I think that’s a safe assumption.
Philosopher William Lane Craig puts it like this:
Premise 1): Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2): The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: The Universe had a cause.
1) The ability of things popping into existence from nothing without a cause is not worth arguing.
2) Both science and philosophy support the idea that the universe had a beginning.
Therefore…it must have had a cause.
It doesn’t specifically point to the Christian God that I believe in, I have other reasons for that belief.
However, based on Godel and a finite universe I don’t think one can argue that the idea of a god of some sort is illogical.
What caused God? It’s not a coherent question. By definition God is eternal…uncaused…was always there, unlike the finite universe.
So “What caused God?” becomes “What caused the un-caused being?” Doesn’t make sense.
Always interested in this kind of discussion, though don’t usually have so much to say…thanks for posting!
Rod MacKenzie
Rod, you’re right. And if Gödel’s theorem applies to a rock then it applies equally to a planet and equally to all planets and to the whole universe. There’s nothing about zooming in or zooming out that suddenly changes everything.
Perry,
I checked out your talk on Information Theory: “If you can read this, I can prove God exists” on the Cosmic Fingerprints site and found it excellent.
I would like to offer a link to this talk in a Blog I’m working on re: the rationality of the Christian worldview…I had already planned my next post around the same topic.
Do you mind? If not, should I just send readers to the Cosmic Fingerprints site, or do you have this talk available on one of your own sites that you’d prefer I link to?
Thanks,
Rod
Rod,
Use it in any way you want. Also there’s a link “Origin of Life Video” which is similar – that may be useful too. I salute your efforts – nice site you have!
Perry
Thanks Perry,
I look forward to reading more interesting stuff from you, and I’ll definitely be linking to Cosmic Fingerprints from my Rational Faith site.
Rod
It’s also interesting that so many that have posted here can point to the universe and say that since it exists, it must have a cause, and if there is a cause then a god of some form must exist in order to cause it.
If it is accepted as true that nothing can exist without a creator, then God CANNOT exist without being caused by something else.
If you claim that God exists, and can do so without a cause since that is part of the definition of what it means to be God, then it MUST follow that other things (such as the universe) could do so without a creator as well.
The reason the universe cannot be uncaused is because of entropy. If it were infinitely old, there would be no available energy remaining. You can’t burn a candle twice. Modern cosmology has established that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old and began in a single point expanding with the big bang.
Gödel’s theorem shows that the cause of the universe has to be outside the universe, since the universe is by necessity incomplete.
The single direction of entropy and our perception of an “arrow of time” are closely bound together (we remember the past and not the future, and perceive everything as inexorably rolling from the past into the future, and at the same time from a low entropy state to a high entropy state) but it is conceivable that we may simply be in a region of a larger universe, where chance fluctuation created a (temporary) condition of low entropy, that is now returning to a ‘baseline’ level of entropy over billions of years.
In this wider universe, without the steady progression of entropy there might equally be little in the way of an orderly flow of time, matter interacting in ways that are very hard to imagine intuitively (I don’t claim to be able to understand what that would be like, which I’m aware must sound frustratingly similar to the “it’s a mystery” so often put forward as a nonexplanation by religion, but the model is workable, and it would be a way to explain our universe without appeal to a truly unknowable supernatural force.
The ‘outer’ universe would be an inhospitable place for our kind of life, but the idea would have some accord with the multiverse idea; relatively distinct universes expanding into their own pockets or bubbles of space.
I’m not saying that’s how it happened, or that it’s how I believe it happened; my stance would be to file it under “maybe plausible, pending further evidence”.
Matt,
I think it’s significant that in order to avoid the obvious consequences of entropy you have to invoke an undetectable universe in which entropy works differently than it works here.
I’d have a hard time calling such a theory parsimonious. Or scientific.
Are you unconditionally committed to atheism as a worldview or are you willing to follow the evidence where it leads?
On what basis do you assert that a supernatural force is unknowable?
Why do you define that which is outside the known universe as uncaused? How do you arrive at the conclusion that it is?
If anything exists, then it is reasonable to assume that it is caused, yes. This seems to go for anything that has ever been observed. It is mere speculation to say that it does not go for a being that is outside the known universe. In fact, once we knew that being, it would instantly become part of the known universe, and thus, caused.
Inevitably you arrive at the necessity of an uncaused cause. Just do a Google search on “infinite regression” and you’ll quickly see why philosophers universally reject it.
Christian theology has always defined God as NOT being part of the known universe, but a cause of it. This is entirely different from eastern religious views like pantheism and panentheism which see God as being part of the universe.
Please name your reasoning for rejecting an infinite regress. What christianity says about god is as irrelevant at what a few philosophers have said, since this is only an appeal to authority. In a discussion among adults, you show your logical deductions, and we can talk.
From Wikipedia:
An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite sequence needed to provide such support could not be completed.
A vicious regress is “an attempt to solve a problem which re-introduced the same problem in the proposed solution. If one continues along the same lines, the initial problem will recur infinitely and will never be solved.
An infinite regress such as you are advocating only proliferates the problem you are trying to solve right here. It is a non-answer.
I have showed entirely logical deductions. I have not appealed to authority, only Gödel’s theorem and logic.
So far as I can tell, your only reason for rejecting my answer is that you don’t like it. Can you present logical explanation for the origin of the universe that doesn’t just go around in circles?
Very interesting stuff.
This is a bit off topic but I find myself saying, “Yep; something must have created the universe”, but then the next thing that pops into mind is “so what”? Why do people go to such extraordinary lengths to ‘prove’ it to others (like you do Perry
? Even going as far as killing people.
How does that faith help us or impact our lives? Obviously the answer to that depends on each person’s concept of what the creator is, but to me it doesn’t help and shouldn’t make a bit of difference to how we behave.
Alasdair,
There is a huge battle in the marketplace of ideas regarding the existence of God. Look at how many books on this topic are bestsellers during the last few years. Yes, I have gone to great lengths…. Even to the point of writing an 1800 word summary of Gödel’s theorem :^>
Actually I have done much more than just that, which you can see if you visit my other websites http://www.coffeehousetheology.com and http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com.
I believe that no civilization rises higher than its idea of God. A lot of people consider faith to be a private personal thing which others should not be bothered with; but I think that idea is false. Our faith, whatever it may be, greatly affects what we do.
The US Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these things to be self-evident, that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The very idea of human rights is a faith statement. It is not scientifically provable. It can’t be derived from Darwinism. It comes from a belief not only in God but God’s relation to mankind.
These things matter a lot.
A counterexample would be the abuses of communism in the 20th century. Is it merely a coincidence that the governments who killed more than 100 million people just happened to be officially atheistic? Atheist regimes killed more people in one century than religious wars killed in all centuries put together. Could that really be just a happy accident?
A few articles I think might provoke more thinking on this:
http://www.perrymarshall.com/merry-christmas-2008/
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq
To the average guy on the street it seems like people are good or bad simply because they’re either good people or bad people and religion has nothing to do with it. But I would challenge you to press further: WHY should I believe in human rights? WHY should we take care of sick people and handicapped people? WHY should we try to eradicate poverty? What happens when you drill down to bedrock on those questions? What do you find?
Perry
“The very idea of human rights is a faith statement. It is not scientifically provable. It can’t be derived from Darwinism. It comes from a belief not only in God but God’s relation to mankind.”
@Perry – A very strong argument against this point… http://bit.ly/oleLkm
Morality, virtue, and concepts like “human rights” are objective. They are necessary for human survival, prosperity, and advancement.
Can you explain, in your own words:
Why is human flourishing objectively good?
What is the objective standard of goodness?
How is anyone duty bound to be self-made like John Galt or to embrace Ayn Rand’s virtues?
I can explain it in my own words, but note that its not a matter of me suggesting it (that would make the argument subjective). Rather, its the logic presented in such an explanation, and the objective outcome that results from following the principles. I hope you read the original link, as Rand is clearly more versed in her own views, but I’ll do my best here…
1. Human flourishing is objectively good because it protects the only objectively verifiable intelligent life we know of, and as beings our primary rational motivation is to sustain our own life and well being.
2. Goodness is that which sustains life and promotes happiness. I am not aware of any rational argument that objects with this idea? I understand some people make irrationally self-interested decisions (murder, drug use, self loathing, etc.) due to lack of education, lack of ability to identify how this act hurts their happiness/security/stability/etc., or lack of ability to use reason to promote their own well being. However, as this sort of thinking is grounded in irrationality, it is irrelevant. Objectively, goodness is not achieved by these acts.
3. We have free choice. We are not bound to be self-made or to even make rationally self-interested choices. This may be considered a downside to natural selection, random chance, and even the concept of choice. However, we are in fact “motivated” to embrace such virtues, as they objectively contribute to our own well being. As Ayn Rand would say “We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality”. That is how choice works, but the objective outcome is clear. We must exercise our reason and logic to maximize our happiness, prosperity, and advancement.
–
How do you objectively conclude God is moral? What authority does he report to, or how do you conclude that the only possible kind of “God” would by definition define morality? How is God bound to be virtuous, and moreover, how can we reconcile the idea of a moral God with the inherent destructive, torturous, and cruel process of evolution?
Rick,
Allow me to play devil’s advocate. In principle I agree with much of what you’re saying and there’s even a part of me that likes Ayn Rand.
1. If human flourishing is objectively good because it protects objectively verifiable intelligent life, then what about humans that are not objectively intelligent? What about those that fall below a certain IQ level or whatever? How do you not end up with eugenics?
2. Goodness is that which sustains whose life, and promotes whose happiness? I agree that people do harmful things for stupid reasons but sometimes they do harmful things for very noble reasons. The Chinese have mandatory abortions and cruel laws to limit the population. There’s a very persuasive argument that this is necessary. Are they right? On what basis do you argue that this is right or wrong? if you say it’s right can you prove it’s not wrong? If you say it’s wrong can you prove it’s not right?
3. Yes we do have free choice, yet there’s almost universal agreement that some choices are very bad. Is this agreement just social contract or is it rooted in something objective?
My argument for objective morality is metaphysical. Ayn Rand’s arguments are metaphysical too. Much of her thinking is philosophically incompatible with the New Atheism BTW.
To your last question: How do you objectively conclude God is moral, what authority does he report to?
In the theistic view, the morality of God is taken as an axiom. As I said to one guy several years ago, “I do not judge God, God judges me. I consider this statement to be self-evident, requiring no further explanation or justification.”
If God as theists generally understand Him exists, then yes, this statement does require no further justification.
I have already provided logical, mathematical and scientific inference to the existence of God. This conversation extends to moral questions about God. My logic is:
1) Science, math and logic infer the existence of God (which I am of course advocating here and on the other blog, as we converse)
2) The existence of God can then be logically taken as grounds for believing that objective moral values exist
I have not proven that God is moral so far but I have shown that my own worldview is logically sound. I have rational reason to posit an infinite limitless being.
In my opinion, “objective morality” only has any real meaning if there is judgment and consequences in the afterlife. Real suffering and real reward. Aside from that, even if God DOES exist, it doesn’t matter, because in theory you can mow down children at a daycare with a machine gun and get away with it. Western conceptions of God say you will ultimately never get away with that. Again that is the only definition of objective morality that has any teeth. (We could also consider eastern ideas like Karma of course. But that, too, comes back to consequences.)
In my view of the world, science/math gives grounding for believing in God and from that point forward, moral questions are theological questions.
In asking the questions you ask in the last paragraph, you are asking theological questions. Even your question about evolution being cruel is a theological question. Are you willing to consider my answers on theological grounds?
I’ll do my best to answer your questions based on my current understanding. As with most things – it’s a work in progress…
1. There is always room for charity and humanitarian efforts. Often times our happiness is in part derived from helping those we determine are truly in need (recognizing we could have easily ended up in their situation). On the other hand, I think our happiness is harmed by being forced to help those we feel are taking advantage of the system (through government or social obligation). This is just one of many examples of where constant individual thought and reason are critical to the achievement of happiness, and how there is no “fast food” philosophy that simply has ready-made answers to every question. I certainly wouldn’t derive happiness from watching people die due to inability to sustain themselves, and I sincerely doubt anyone driven by rational self-interest would either. What I am quite sure of is forcing people to give up prosperity to help others (some that need it, others that done) is a terribly short sighted approach to ensuring lasting prosperity of any kind.
2. This is a very complicated situation that is based on a wide range of fundamental issues. First off, I don’t agree with the vast majority of government regulations. The actual problem here stems from centuries of irrational thought – from people that have been given permission to act irrationally through both faith-based philosophies and government based handouts. When people are forced to truly think through the implications of their own decisions, based on knowing they will directly face the consequences, government regulation is not necessary. A very practical example, my wife and I have decided we won’t be having more than two kids – for the very fear of over-population. Reasonable and practical decisions cannot be forced by government mandate, and arbitrary rules that attempt to ban bad choices only create new problems (not to mention, promote a less rational society). History has proven that government central planning is simply incapable of efficiently solving anything.
3. Choices are only bad when people have limited understanding, reduced critical thinking, or don’t have a direct connection to the consequences of their choices. This is where I feel the message that “faith is a virtue” is simply one of the most destructive ideas in the history of mankind (here I make a fundamental distinction between blind faith in the unobservable and reasonable faith based on objective/observable evidence – many theists like to equate the two in order to minimize the advancement of knowledge and understanding). Furthermore, any attempt to place a barrier between an individuals decisions and the resulting consequences hurts mans ability to draw necessary connections within their mind.
“If God as theists generally understand Him exists, then yes, this statement does require no further justification.”
This entire concept is based on faith… of course it requires mountains of justification, evidence, and proof. We have been debating the existence of God separately from this, but that isn’t even the point. Assuming you still choose to use selective inductive reasoning to infer there is a God, I cannot imagine how you can connect this seemingly indescribable being with one very specific religion and one very specific understanding of his moral status. This entire idea strongly re-enforces my point that such beliefs are heavily rooted in pre-existing beliefs, confirmation bias, and selective reasoning. I don’t feel the need to convince you of this, but am simply sharing my outside perspective.
“In my opinion, “objective morality” only has any real meaning if there is judgment and consequences in the afterlife.”
This statement fails to address how God himself would be moral or how there is any proof whatsoever of an afterlife. Does God have no arbiter? Who is there to judge his actions? What consequences does he face? Who should conclude that evolution is a painful, destructive, and a tortuous method to bring about life – and that perhaps God should be punished as a result? Just as the prime mover argument suggests God would need a cause, my response is that God would need his own objective arbiter in order to be moral (based on the argument you are making). Furthermore, I have yet to see any objective evidence for anything resembling an afterlife, let alone a future existence in which we are reminded of our past “sins” and are punished for them.
Therefore, I would strongly suggest that the only real arbiter is reality. When we steal, we risk being stolen from (or at least must then live with this fear). When we kill, we risk being killed (again, at very least live with this fear). Every action or choice has it’s consequences. When it comes to “God” being an arbiter, this doesn’t seem to actually affect change. Many people are irrational enough to believe they are doing good when they are doing evil, or perhaps simply don’t believe there is a God and therefore don’t fear punishment at all. In theory, their actions would not be affected by there simply being a God – especially one that makes his existence difficult, or perhaps impossible, to verify.
Therefore, it is only the immediate and tangible effects of their decisions, tied with improved reason and logic to forecast such effects, that will direct positive change. The more we understand reality and dismiss irrational faith, the more likely we will be to make correct decisions and reduce negative consequences. Do I think we will even reach perfection? Not necessarily, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for it in the correct direction – one that affects actual change.
As far as me being willing to “consider (your) questions on theological grounds” – I fail to see how we need to step into the world of faith and mysticism to objectively verify morality. Again, even if you conclude there is a God, I see no path to determine he is moral, that a hell should/must exist, or that any form of punishment/reward beyond the real world exists. Such ideas seem to be overwhelmingly based in pre-existing beliefs, and don’t seem like efficient ways to deal with irrational decisions (if anything, theism erodes critical thinking by promoting faith and belief in many ideas – of which the existence of “God” is just one of many unprovable assertions).
I accept reality as the final arbiter, because wither individuals accept it or not, there is no escaping it’s consequences. We don’t have to believe anything, be fearful of a mystical force, or ponder unknown implications in order to be exposed to the natural consequences of our actions. Just like a free-market economy is extremely efficient (even with some elements outside of the control of individuals), reality is extremely efficient at delivering appropriate consequences (even with some results being outside of individuals control). Both free-market economies and reality-based morals have disruptions based in irrationality, but as we move away from faith and towards reason, logic, and critical thinking – things improve exponentially.
Rick,
Every totalitarian regime in the history of man has applied individual logical thought and reason. In many respects the programs of Lenin and Stalin were entirely logical, from someone’s point of view. We need to think through these things, we need to apply rationality… I don’t see where you have added anything helpful here. Sounds like a negotiation to me, where the most powerful person wins.
You haven’t told me whether it’s OK to force women to have abortions in China yet. I’m interested in your answer.
“Choices are only bad when people have limited understanding, reduced critical thinking, or don’t have a direct connection to the consequences of their choices.”
So choices are always good when people have unlimited understanding, expanded critical thinking, and have a direct connection to the consequences of their choices? Does anyone have unlimited understanding? Does anyone have direct connection to all the consequences of their choices? How does your statement help us make right decisions? What have you really added to the discussion?
I’m looking in vain here for anything here which could be considered an objective set of moral values. It feels as though you’re trying to avoid doing just that. Actually the most interesting thing you said was this:
“Therefore, it is only the immediate and tangible effects of their decisions, tied with improved reason and logic to forecast such effects, that will direct positive change.”
This is precisely what’s wrong with a purely Darwinian worldview. Because all of us create consequences with our actions that are far, far removed from us.
All you’ve said here is that actions have consequences. We all know that. So how does non-theism give us objective morality? You’ve spent some time insulting religious people but you didn’t answer my original questions.
You asked, how do I know God is good? One source of knowledge is my own personal experiences with miracles and healing, as well as scientific evaluations of the same.
See http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles/
“Sounds like a negotiation to me, where the most powerful person wins.”
The “most powerful person” doesn’t win when someone else loses. A truly rational person would recognize any gain based on “power” comes at someone else’s expense. Are you truly happy when you feel you’ve taken advantage of someone as opposed to winning fair and square? Of course not. A truly rational person knows that the joys of accomplishment come from honest achievement – and this is often best accomplished through mutual gain. Even those that “lose” in direct competition gain in overall prosperity when the winning idea/product becomes clear to all. A rational person would understand that the other individual has a natural advantage in this area, and would move on to innovate or contribute in another way. A rational person recognizes that his own happiness is enhanced by the happiness of those around him.
“You haven’t told me whether it’s OK to force women to have abortions in China yet. I’m interested in your answer.”
I didn’t intend to dodge this. It’s never ok to force someone to do something against their will. The problem of overpopulation is one that solves itself in a rational society. What is the purpose in having children if you know their existence will suffer because of over-population? Reasoning people would see this issue coming from a mile away and would solve it rationally.
Your example fails to identify the many factors that contribute to the original problem. Lack of education, lack of critical thinking and reason, and centuries of crippled technological advancement due to some of these multiplying factors. You can come up with tricky scenarios to challenge my views, but it is essential to ask questions like – where did the initial problem come from? I find it curious that you don’t blame your concept of “God” for the limited space we have here on earth, the limited resources, and the irrationality that contributes to women having too many babies in the first place.
“So choices are always good when people have unlimited understanding, expanded critical thinking, and have a direct connection to the consequences of their choices? Does anyone have unlimited understanding? Does anyone have direct connection to all the consequences of their choices? How does your statement help us make right decisions? What have you really added to the discussion?”
I’ve already addressed these points. I stated we may never have perfect knowledge, but we certainly do recognize that the more knowledge we have – the better our decisions are. We can choose to reject any personal responsibility of choice onto an imagined “all knowing God”… but that only supports my point that knowledge enhances decision making abilities while failing to prove the existence of such a being. Simply wanting perfect answers doesn’t mean there is a God ready to provide them.
“This is precisely what’s wrong with a purely Darwinian worldview. Because all of us create consequences with our actions that are far, far removed from us.”
In saying this, you are not contradicting my view that having more information, thought, and critical thinking is beneficial. You are simply asserting we will never have enough information to make perfect decisions. I fail to see how this changes the fact that a more rational world would be a better place… or to see how any theistic moral code or concept of God has been proven effective to date. Again, just because you want perfection now doesn’t mean there is a God waiting to provide it.
“You asked, how do I know God is good? One source of knowledge is my own personal experiences with miracles and healing, as well as scientific evaluations of the same.”
This is a clear example of selective reasoning. How and why do you dismiss blatant examples of world suffering, starvation, and the destruction of natural disasters? Your willingness to accept examples of good and dismiss examples of bad (or perhaps attribute them to a “devil”) is indicative of your overwhelming confirmation bias. Why do you arbitrarily assert “God” is good?
Can you prove the devil exists? Is he responsible for natural disasters? If you say “sin” or “evil” is proof of the devils existence – how can these are not a direct result of “God”? What evidence do you have that objectively proves God is inherently good and therefore couldn’t also create destruction and suffering?
The entire theistic belief system is based on indoctrination and acceptance of arbitrary ideas. If “God” is by definition “good”, why did he create the devil? If he didn’t create the devil, then God isn’t outside the existence of everything. If there is no devil – why is there evil/sin as you would define it? If there is no evil/sin… why is their heaven/hell or any form of post-life award/punishment?
We need to blindly accept the entire theistic message in order for various definitions to hold any merit. God has to be arbitrarily defined as perfect/good in order to support the notion that your concept of evil/sin proves the existence of a devil. All of these arbitrary definitions break down when we start asking for objective evidence of their validity.
Perry says:
‘You are invited to demonstrate a flaw in Gödel’s logic if you can. And I will certainly be happy to post that argument here on my blog.’
Well, it’s not that hard to point out the flaw in Godel’s argument. It isn’t something that can be put into a few lines, but you can see it here:
http://jamesrmeyer.com/godel_flaw.html
and in simplified form, together with a simplified explanation of Godel’s proof here:
http://jamesrmeyer.com/ffgit/GodelSimplified0.html
James,
Q: Are you only seeking to show a flaw in Gödel’s original paper, or are you seeking to broadly show that the Incompleteness theorem in its various current forms is fundamentally incorrect?
Perry
James,
I am not sufficiently trained in formal mathematics to decide, myself, whether you are right or wrong. Perhaps I could with time but that would require a very significant time commitment from me. Readers can decide for themselves.
What I will say is that based on reading the online debates about this for a couple of hours, I’m not persuaded that you’re correct. I sifted through these threads:
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6300764&tstart=0
and
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_frm/thread/3fd9e2fe7b924c74/270a6b8f731207cf?hl=en&pli=1
and
http://r6.ca/Goedel/FFGITReview.html
and
http://www.jamesrmeyer.com/ffgit/review-oconnor.html
I believe everyone is being fair with you. Also I believe that if you are correct about this, you can get this published. There is surely a mathematics journal that would be willing to risk opposing the Gödel doctrine. Such a thing would be a newsworthy event.
My own judgment is based on several things:
1) The conversations I see here are generally not vitriolic. There is real discussion happening here. I know what knuckleheads sound like when they’re in denial of losing an argument, and these people are neither knuckleheads, nor are they losing the argument.
2) This is not a shades of gray issue with dozens of difficult-to-quantify factors, like arguing about, say, the myriad causes of global warming. This is math and logic.
3) Gödel’s theorem has been scrutinized and obsessed over for decades. The Logical Positivists in particular had enormous motivations to disprove Incompleteness when Gödel first published his paper; yet they could not. I find it difficult to believe that Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell and even Hilbert would have been unable to find this flaw 50+ years ago if it were real. Not to mention thousands of others who have followed.
Again, readers can judge for themselves. In my opinion there is a slim possibility that the mathematical profession has been wrong about Gödel for 80 years but it’s not a horse I’m willing to bet on.
If you are right then I salute you and in any case encourage you to consider getting your findings published.
I am a mathematician, and I can tell you for sure that you have a basic misunderstanding of what the theory of everything is; the theory of everything is a grand unifying field theory. It has nothing to do with having a system that is entirely self contained, but rather a system that can describe the fundamental forces simply. Your assumption that a conscious being must be the external observer seems kind of ridiculous to me, and is a giant jump. You might as well be Descartes with his cogito ergo sum, ergo deus. What a ridiculous notion.
A system that describes the fundamental forces simply is still a system, and still subject to Gödel’s theorem.
You’re welcome to challenge any specific statement I have made. I maintain that everything I have said here is 100% logical and that the conclusions follow naturally from the premises.
Perry,
I thoroughly enjoyed your article, and the mental, logical, and theological exercise it plays in. There’s nothing like hangin’ out with smart people to make you smarter.
So frankly, with all the smart people you attract, I’m surprised no one’s mentioned this…
Just as “I am lying” is a paradox, so is Godel’s theorem. All we need to do is draw a circle around all the things that Godel’s theorem applies to. Outside of that circle must be all the things that the theorem doesn’t apply to. Therefore, Godel’s theorem does not apply to all the things that Godel’s theorem applies to.
Oh! (smoke coming from my ears) My head hurts!
Is there a flaw in this application of Godel’s theorem?
-Mark
p.s. All my best wishes for a healthy, happy, giving and prosperous new year, Perry.
Mark,
Gödel’s theorem applies to all systems, statements, objects and propositions.
The thing outside the biggest circle is not a system or statement or object or proposition. It’s real not imaginary; it’s axiomatic; it’s conscious; it’s boundless and immaterial.
Which is to say, Gödel’s theorem does not apply to God. Rather, I would say that Gödel’s theorem is itself contingent on God. Consider how God identified Himself to Moses in Exodus 3:14: Simply “I AM.”
Happy New Year to you too Mark! Great to hear from ya yesterday.
Perry
P.S.: There’s a lengthy conversation with a guy named Derek on my other blog about something very closely related to this, it’s at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/comment-page-1/#comment-3241 and http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/comment-page-1/#comment-3725
I loved the article until it stop being descriptive and tried to argument for the existence of god. You made some really big jumps there, pal.
I liked your approach to explaining the existence of god, but you have to be honest with yourself.
At least you are not the kind of christian who believes Jesus used to ride a velociraptor.
cheers!
You’re welcome to explain exactly where, logically speaking, I made “really big jumps.”
It seems that you have grossly misunderstood Godel. There are actually two theorems.
Number 1:
“Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250).”
Number 2
“For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.”
(Pulled from Wikipedia.)
These do not apply to all systems. They only apply to those that express arithmetic.
If logic and arithmetic describe the universe, then Gödel’s theorem applies to the universe.
If logic and arithmetic do not describe the universe, then scientific thought also does not apply to the universe.
Everything I have said here is contingent on science and math being valid tools for studying the physical world. My conclusions here are therefore as valid as the practice of science itself.
I do concede that the practice of science is based on, literally, FAITH, that the universe is rational. By the way, the notion that the universe is rational originally came from Judeo-Christian theology. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq/#christian
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”
My point was that this is not what Godel’s theorems say at all. The theorems say nothing about having to assume the existence of anything outside the ‘circle.’ What you have done is taken a metaphor and extended it far beyond its bounds, and the metaphor was incorrect in the first place.
Derek,
Quoting you, the theorem says:
“…there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable IN the theory.” (Emphasis mine.)
This means that is axiomatic. It relies on an axiom, which is something you know to be true or have to assume to be true but which is unprovable. If it is consistent it is incomplete. Anything that proves its consistency is outside the statement. Therefore there is something outside the statement.
“This means that is axiomatic. It relies on an axiom, which is something you know to be true or have to assume to be true but which is unprovable. If it is consistent it is incomplete. Anything that proves its consistency is outside the statement. Therefore there is something outside the statement.”
Perhaps some clarification will help. All formal systems are axiomatic. A proof is when you show some statement to be a result of the axioms. So such a statement cannot rely upon an axiom, per Godel’s theorem. Also you are assuming that there is something that does, in fact, prove it’s consistency, which Godel’s theorems do not assert.
You also are confusing objects of language with the language itself. Just because parts of the universe can be described by mathematics, does not make the universe a formal system. It’s like calling a chair a noun. ‘Chair’ is a noun, but a chair is not; only words can be nouns.
Derek,
If you don’t think the universe can be accurately described by mathematics – and that it is not a formal system – you are free to take that position. At the same time you are then taking a position that science is a questionable endeavor.
If a statement is a result of an axiom then it relies on the axiom. And this is what Gödel is saying.
Rolling with your chair analogy, I am not saying a chair is a noun. I’m saying that a chair is an object. The word “chair” is a noun.
In mathematics, all systems rely on axioms – assumptions which must be taken to be true but cannot be proven.
If the universe is a formal system then the universe similarly relies on *something* which must be taken to be true but cannot be proven. And the thing that the universe relies on is a something, not a nothing. Therefore the universe is not the only thing that exists. There is something outside the universe which is not a system.
Wow, thought provoking post. It’s not often that I see proofs of Gods existence of such high quality. That said, I’m curious to know how your take on two points that didn’t quite jive for me.
First, does Godel’s Theorem apply to itself? Can it truly ever be proven, if it’s making assumptions that it can’t prove? If it can, then the theorem is proven useless, and if it can’t, then how can anything in the universe ever be proven? (If nothing can be proven, what evidence for a god could we have?)
Secondly, using the circle analogy, if there is something outside of the largest circle that it is possible to draw, then that something must be infinite. If it is infinite, then it is everywhere. If it is everywhere, how has evaded detection of scientists for so very long? If a creator is boundless, then science must have found evidence of its existence, and if not, it could be encompassed by a circle. Paradoxical…
Again, thanks for a well thought-out post.
Gödel’s theorem does rely on assumptions you cannot prove, in the sense that Gödel expresses his theorem in Peano axioms, a mathematical system which is not provable within itself. Incompleteness is proven in the same way that geometry proofs are proven. It is 100% consistent with all that is known.
God IS everywhere. Judeo-Christian theologians have been saying that for 4000 years. Why does God evade detection? Because God is immaterial and we can only detect material things with the scientific process. But God is inferred in innumerable ways.
Dire misunderstanding of Godel’s theorem. It was all going so well until you took the metaphor you’d constructed around the maths and tried to apply it to the universe. As another commenter has said, the theorem applies only to mathematical systems. Specifically those systems that are complex enough to derive arithmetic from.
The real “incompleteness” is that when working with the axioms of those specific formal systems, you will find there are either things that are true that you cannot prove, or things that are paradoxical that you can prove – the system is either incomplete or inconsistent.
You insist on saying that the universe must be a formal system for it to be described by science, the truth is that science describes the world _using_ various formally phrased “laws”, but the universe itself is the “outside of the circle” (outside of our descriptive system) to point to in this case.
Our formal systems don’t define the universe; they’re a best approximation to what we observe, and the self-justifying element at the foundation of it all is the bald fact of the way things are. Reality doesn’t derive from axioms, it just is what it is, and because of that it doesn’t in any sense match up to what the Incompleteness Theorem was about.
Matt,
Gödel’s theorem applies to everything that reason and logic apply to.
No, our formal systems don’t define the universe, they describe them.
If the universe is complete it is inconsistent and thus not amenable to scientific analysis.
If the universe is consistent and amenable to logical analysis, then it is incomplete and therefore contingent on something.
I vote in favor of science. IF the universe is scientifically, mathematically and logically describable, then God exists.
You are welcome to reject the God proposition. In so doing you also reject reason and logic and science.
“Gödel’s theorem applies to everything that reason and logic apply to.”
No, I believe you’ll find that it applies strictly to axiomatic mathematical systems; “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory”
So if you start with a set of mathematical axioms, and those axioms are sufficient to express arithmetic, then it is also true that your system is either incomplete (there are truths that it can’t prove) or it’s inconsistent (you can prove things that are contradictory).
Now say it with me, the universe is not an axiomatic system of mathematics. There are no axioms of the universe, and hence no logical derivation of other propositions from the universe and no Incompleteness.
Empirical derivation of propositions, maybe (although that’ll run the risk of simple observational error), but I can’t repeat enough; the universe is not a system of formal logic. Further, it has no need to prove itself by formal logic – the universe just is. Its nature is a simple fact, that to some extent we observe.
I also take issue with your talk of “The origin of information”. The genetic ‘code’ is not symbolic and immaterial, it’s carbon-based chemistry. Not even very complicated chemistry to be honest. You claim that ‘information’ had to come from the ‘outside’, which seems to miss the fact that randomly combined nucleotides have just as much genetic information in them as the same length of useful DNA. The only difference is that genetic material that is conducive to its own replication will do just that, replicating more than other such material until it dominates.
“All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings” is a barely concealed circular argument. It fails on the count that genes are not real codes (they are molecules – talk of information being coded into them is a convenient shorthand for talking about their chemical properties) and even if I let that pass, it fails on the second count that you use the assumption of all codes being consciously designed to argue that a specific code is consciously designed without any further evidence for your position.
“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it. If you know Gödel’s theorem, you know that all systems must rely on something outside the system. [..] Because the universe is a system, it has an outside cause.”
Once again, the natural world is not an axiomatic system, and hence not something that Godel’s theorem is applicable to.
Matt,
Any system of logic (boolean algebra for example) is always definable in terms of axiomatic mathematical systems.
You are free to reject the idea that axiomatic mathematical systems accurately model the universe. But in doing so you are rejecting the very premise of science, which is that the universe is weighable, countable, measurable, and that the activities of matter and energy conform to reason and logic and mathematical formulas.
The pattern in DNA is a code. All you need to do to verify that fact is read a biology book very carefully. Study the history of the genetic code. Discover for yourself why GGG=Glycine and AAA=Lycine etc etc.
The clearest explanation of this in my book collection is by Hubert Yockey. He says: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521802938?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwperryc-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0521802938
“Any system of logic (boolean algebra for example) is always definable in terms of axiomatic mathematical systems.” Agreed, but I don’t see the relevance.
“You are free to reject the idea that axiomatic mathematical systems accurately model the universe.” I didn’t, I rejected the idea that the universe itself is an axiomatic mathematical system.
To put it in your terms, the reason we can model the universe with logical systems is that we have an actual universe “outside of the circle” to “point to”. (Quotations used to express the fact that I dislike the terminology; it’s an oversimplification of the theorem and makes it too easy to misapply it)
The universe as we know it acts as the ultimate axiom – if the model contradicts the universe, we know the model is wrong. It may be that some physical ‘laws’ that we think are true turn out to be incomplete or inconsistent in their description of the universe, but that means we need an improved model, not that the universe needs some external factor to be explained.
As for genetic codes, it’s as I’ve said; even if I accept that it is a true code, you don’t have a valid argument. Saying that all known codes have a conscious origin, and that therefore a specific code has a conscious origin, is specious reasoning. To prove that all codes have conscious origin would require you to prove that genes have a conscious origin, which you have not done.
I can accept Yockey’s assertion that “the origin of life is the founding axiom of biology” — biology being the study of life it doesn’t make a great deal of sense to talk about pre-biotic biology.
Pre-biotic chemistry is another matter though; chemistry and physics do not depend in any sense on the existence or origins of life, and we can very usefully study the precursors of life in the form of non-living organic chemistry, and theorise on how such chemicals might become self-replicating and come to form something we recognise as living.
Matt,
The relevance of my first comment is that Gödel’s theorem applies to all things that are defined as systems.
You are rejecting the idea that axiomatic mathematical systems model the universe. You are free to do that.
But if math does accurately describe the universe, then the universe is just as axiomatic as the math that describes it.
The universe cannot be the ultimate axiom if you believe in cause and effect. The universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago. Something had to cause it.
You are of course free to reject the principle of cause and effect. That is your decision.
If we were to build a mathematical system that perfectly describes the big bang, it would rely on some initial conditions and axiomatic statements that are not provable inside the system. Therefore if we accept the principle of cause and effect, the universe is contingent on something outside itself.
My statement that all known codes have conscious origin, therefore a specific code has a conscious origin, is not specious. Perhaps this conclusion is bothersome to you, but it’s straightforward inductive reasoning. You can choose not to accept that. If you reject it then you reject induction which is the basis of most scientific propositions. My statement is just as reliable as gravity and entropy. For example, the assumption that the law of gravity is the same 10 billion light years away as it is here is not proven and probably not provable either. (Formally speaking it is not provable at all.) We assume gravity is a consistent law based only on induction.
Self replication requires a code to exist first, as John Von Neumann determined in his papers on self-replicating machines in the 1960′s. All codes we know the origin of are designed. Therefore we have 100% inference that the genetic code is designed and 0% inference to any other explanation.
We understand codes every bit as well as we understand gravity. Maybe better. We create codes all the time. We can’t create gravity. Thus any conclusion other than “DNA is designed” is specious.
“The relevance of my first comment is that Gödel’s theorem applies to all things that are defined as systems.”
Mathematical systems and logical systems that are equivalent to mathematical systems, yes. I have never denied this. But the universe is neither; it’s a physical system. It doesn’t derive from axioms, it can’t be used to derive propositions, it doesn’t fit the bill.
The closest you can come to ‘deriving a proposition’ from the universe is to observe its behaviour and formulate a mathematical statement to describe that behaviour. Maybe the model is subject to Incompleteness but, as you’ve said, that just means it needs something outside of the model to serve as an unproven given. The thing outside the model is the universe’s actual observed behaviour. We can take that as an absolute axiom with respect to what our models should predict.
“But if math does accurately describe the universe, then the universe is just as axiomatic as the math that describes it.”
The model has, as far as we know, been accurate up until now. I don’t take that as absolute/unshakeable proof that the universe will always be consistent with our predictions. If the two things diverge we’ll need to come up with a new model because they remain two different things. Using an axiomatic model to describe a thing, however accurately, doesn’t make that thing, itself, axiomatic.
“The universe cannot be the ultimate axiom if you believe in cause and effect. The universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago. Something had to cause it.”
I’ll take this seriously when you can convince me that a) your god doesn’t equally require a cause and that b) the universe (or some n-dimensional ‘higher’ universe) can’t be self originating in the same way as you propose that god is. If you’re going to restate the Cosmological argument, I feel quite happy using the age old objections to it. (If you manage the first one, you’ll still need to prove that your first cause has any attribute other than uncausedness. I know you think you’ve done that, you even put it bold, but that’s a whole other argument to have).
You don’t appear to have fully comprehended my point on the subject of “all known codes have conscious origin, therefore a specific code has conscious origin”. There’s no denying that the former implies the latter, but your argument is backwards – to boldly assert something about “all codes” you first need to prove that thing true of each specific code without reference to anything being true of “all codes”.
To put it shortly, “all known codes have conscious origin” is dependent on each specific code having conscious origin, so when you introduce “all known codes have conscious origin” to your argument about a specific code, you’re implicitly assuming that which you’re trying to prove. It’s not “straightforward inductive reasoning” at all, just partially obscured circular reasoning.
As a sidenote, I’m curious; why is a piece about Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem on a site that’s otherwise about Google-based marketing?
Matt,
Postulate: IF the universe conforms to reason and logic then it is subject to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.
The universe is finite. It came into existence 13 billion years ago. How could it give birth to itself?
I think the burden of proof is on you to show that the universe CAN be self-originating.
You can resort to an infinite regress of universes, but philosophers almost universally reject infinite regression as an adequate explanation of anything.
I cannot prove to you that God doesn’t require a cause. I can only point out that at some stage in the past there is a necessity of an uncaused cause. The universe is not its own uncaused cause because everything physical is subject to causality. If you have empirical evidence to the contrary you’re welcome to present it.
All codes we know the origin of are either direct derivatives of DNA (RNA, bee waggles, viruses, dogs barking, pheremone trails, animal instinct) or else they are created by conscious beings making deliberate choices (zip code, morse code, bar code, TCP/IP, every single file on your computer).
My reasoning is not circular. It begins with an open question of not knowing where the genetic code came from and observing closely how all other codes came into being. The process of creating codes is well-known branch of science taught in CS departments in major universities all over the world. There is no other known process for creating codes besides sentient beings making conscious choices of symbols based on desires and priorities. DNA reflects all the same kinds of choices, from the 4-letter alphabet to the most complex genetic transpositions.
If you examine them closely you’ll find that all arguments that DNA is not designed are in fact circular. I have a much more complete presentation on this at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
I really comes down to this: If you hypothesize that codes can occur naturally, then show me one empirical example that supports that hypothesis.
Why an article about Gödel on this website? Because I’m interested in a lot more things in life than just search engines.
Perry
You don’t have to prove scientifically that god exists. You can just be faithful, its a more gracious way of being a believer than trying to push your opinions in a semi-literate way to everyone else…
I recommend Soren Kierkegaard.
Something out of context: ” Thus, faith is united with the truth by serving as the most extreme expression of subjectivity, and by representing the only manner in which the existing individual can accept paradox.”
http://www.schoolbytes.com/summary.php?disp=term&id=234
Check this site, i haven’t read it all, but it could be helpful to everyone like you. In some way, a more complex way you’re trying to do what every silly creationist tries to do in a more naive way, that is, trying to push a belief into science.
Sorry for the errors, english is not my first language.
I think you are putting god outside the circle boundary everything that is real;)
“My reasoning is not circular. It begins with an open question of not knowing where the genetic code came from and observing closely how all other codes came into being.”
Allow me to analogise for a moment. Imagine I were to examine all of the cats I could lay my hands on, I would find that to an animal they would all have tails. I might hence conclude that all known cats have tails, and thus that I believe all cats to have tails.
Then someone presents me with a Manx cat, to which my response is that we already know that all known cats have tails, so this cat must also have a tail. I think you are committing the same flaw of reasoning; hasty generalisation.
All human designed codes have conscious design. That much is tautologically obvious. The other class of ‘codes’ we have are those in the natural world. We know of no designer for these things, and it is faulty reasoning to conclude that because “all known codes” (excluding the natural ones under consideration) have conscious design, that the codes of the natural world must also have conscious design.
I submit, that the codes of the natural world, be they genetic, bee waggles, or any other, are the results of what I will term unconscious design. Brought into being by blind processes with no intent, no thought, no goal and no consciousness.
I’m talking about, of course, evolutionary processes. Amino acids form spontaneously under a variety of conditions, RNA strands have been found to assemble, using cyanide or the checker-board patterns of charge in ice as a template. RNA is also known to be potentially self-catalysing, and self-replicating. Once we have replication (and mutation via faults in replication), we have evolution. Some RNAs go on to produce proteins and DNA, which turn out to be advantageous because they can improve the process of replication and help the RNA that produces them to dominate the available resources.
That path may be hopelessly wrong; we may later find the evidence that shows it happened a different way, I entirely accept that possibility. But at the same time, having any plausible explanation that fits within the natural world without any awkward ‘nomological danglers’ hanging out is infinitely preferable to resorting to the supernatural as an ‘explanation’, because it does not really explain anything at all – no predictions to be made, no evidence to be found, no proof or disproof except the incredulous cries of “well how else could it happen”.
In your other article you dismiss out of hand the idea of naturally occurring codes, without any reasoning presented beyond … well, actually I don’t see any reasoning except stating your position again in slightly different ways; “Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols.” is another example of your circularity – assuming the general case as a way to prove the specific case, when the general case is dependent on the specific case. Maybe chaos has been shown to produce a code, in the instance of naturally occurring codes. Nothing you can say about “all codes” can rule that out.
[Sidenote: I would take exception to natural selection being characterised as chaotic; mutation is the only random step, everything beyond that is much more deterministic, except for true accidents of nature like the first carrier of a novel allele having the misfortune to be hit by a meteor or some such]
If you could prove to me, without any reference to “all other codes” or other generalisations that are dependent on the specific cases, that DNA as an information carrying molecule could not possibly arise by natural processes, then I would be most impressed. (Note also, that stating “Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy” as a premise, without some very strong supporting evidence for that extraordinary claim, will not get you very far).
It’s late, I’m tired, but reply to this and the email notification will remind me to come back and say more about the universe as opposed to DNA.
Matt,
Code is defined as a system of symbols for communication between an encoder and a decoder (Claude Shannon, 1948).
Show me a naturally occurring code. Of ANY kind. Just one.
The problem is that you’ve defined DNA as a code. You were going on about cause and effect; DNA is a series of molecules (physical things) that act in concert to produce/maintain/whatever else (effect) creatures. It’s not a code; it’s a chemical reaction.
Second, you are squirreled down in semantics in a big way. 13.7 billion years ago, we SUSPECT that the big bang occurred because that fits the available data. We suspect, but don’t know. You say that something must have caused it. I ask why?
In university, I used the reaction/proaction argument to “prove” the existence of something beyond what we can know — i.e. if everything is a reaction, and you go back far enough, there was a beginning, therefore a proaction, therefore that energy or whatever it was…et cetera et cetera. But it doesn’t prove anything. Here’s why:
1) I postulate that before the big bang, there was nothingness, and in that state of nothingness some energy (God?) acted on the speck that was our universe and caused it to explode into what we now see. I postulate it, but there’s nothing to indicate this is so. There’s no trace of this energy now, and there’s nothing to indicate it ever happened.
or
2) I postulate that the “universe” is an ineffably vast concept that can barely even be perceived by our fallible minds and senses, much less understood to any great degree.
or
3) I postulate that because thoughts are formed as words, and words can be traced back to some primitive articulation that was created by a fallible mind, all words are most likely wildly inaccurate at best, and completely fallacious. Therefore, any discussion about great concepts is like pissing into the wind. You feel good about yourself, you get it out of your system, but it ends up all over your face.
If you accept the notion that we have an imperfect understanding of the universe, then you have to accept the notion that Godel himself was imperfect. You can’t state with equanimity that his imperfect theorem. based on a imperfect system, which imperfectly describes the universe can POSSIBLY be any type of legitimate proof for anything.
You can say that it is a logical confirmation of something you would like to believe anyway. But I can say (more accurately) that what we think of as logic, is most likely flawed, inaccurate and wrong. It’s simply the best system we have, to date.
BB,
The definition of DNA as code is the most fundamental definition in all of biology. If you want to throw everything we know about genetics in the dumpster, that is your choice. But a more anti-scientific statement could hardly be uttered. I can only urge you to study the history of the genetic code and find out why the pattern of base pairs in DNA is, in fact, a literal code.
Your (1) is actually quite reasonable, and most importantly, pretty much matches the data we have on hand. But it still requires an antecedent event, namely an External Agent.
Your (2) avoids (1) in favor of irrationality. It abdicates to confusion. It discards reason and logic. Which in my opinion is a huge step backwards. It tosses 3000 years of philosophy and mathematics in the dumpster.
Now what I want you to notice is that your (1) and (2) summarize Gödel’s theorem perfectly. Either the universe is consistent, in which case it is incomplete (God is necessary). Or else the universe is complete (no God necessary) but therefore inconsistent.
In other words if we take God as axiomatic, reason and logic and science are allowed to proceed. Then we successfully assume that we can study the universe and learn more and more. If we exclude the possibility of God then we have no choice but to assume the universe is an ineffable mystery.
Correct me if I’m wrong but you appear to be saying, “You just gave me a logical set of statements that show the necessity of God. I prefer illogic.”
I would invite you to open yourself to all the different possibilities and simply follow the evidence where it leads.
Your (3) is an epistemology that we would expect Darwinism to produce. If we are the result of nothing but random copying errors filtered by natural selection, then we have no reason to suspect that our minds can accurately model the mysteries of the universe. If, however, living things have been purposefully programmed, we might rather expect that we were designed to comprehend our creator.
No, that was not was I was saying. My postulates were all statements that were equally valid (they have nothing physical to support them but they are logically sound). Any one is as likely as the other.
With regard to my (1), it does not ‘pretty much match the data on hand.’
Do you know what the scientific consensus is for what happened “before the big bang?”
We don’t know.
Either the universe itself has always been, or it’s cyclical, or there is God, or the big bang never even happened, or or or…
There is problem in saying things with certainty when there are so many unknowns and barely-knowns. But here’s one thing that is known:
Godel’s Theorem isn’t a scientific proof. It’s a thought experiment. It’s an observation about the mathematical system; but it’s a THOUGHT experiment.
It wasn’t that Godel went out and, say, observed anything. He simply observed that, in terms of arithmetic, there were unprovable assumptions made.
The thing is, that assumption doesn’t necessarily hold true in a macrocosmic way. It’s like saying, “I’ve observed (x) about a piece of fruit, therefore (x) must be true about the supermarket, because the supermarket contains fruit.”
It’s not necessarily true. People haven’t disproved his theorem because it’s a logically sound statement. But it doesn’t necessarily hold true as you scale up (similar to how Newtonian physics is true for a vast majority of all cases, but at extremes, it becomes inaccurate).
If you want to dispute that by saying “logic is logic” or something similar, or dismiss this again by saying that I’m throwing out science, be my guest. But that’s not the case. Logic is a tool and not the bottom line. And science is filled with instances of microcosmic observations being true and macrocosmic observations being false (and vice versa).
The universe cannot be cyclical because of entropy. Once a candle is burnt you can’t light it again.
There is no such thing as a scientific proof. Science can only infer. It cannot prove.
Gödel’s theorem is a mathematical proof. In philosophy, a mathematical proof is about as close to an absolute truth as we can get.
Getting hit by a bus and dying is an absolute truth. But it’s not a scientific theorem, it’s just an empirical fact.
Also, DNA is described as a code, but is certainly not DEFINED as a code. Similar to the way many people call every bit of music “songs.” It’s a convenient way to be understood, but it’s not the most accurate.
BB,
See “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” by Hubert Yockey (Cambridge University Press, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521802938?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwperryc-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0521802938
Also see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq
A code is a member of the class ‘symbols’. A first level symbol is a label which is used in place of the thing which it identifies. For example, suppose a building with a sign over the window which bears the word ‘pharmacy’. We can use the symbol ‘pharmacy’ in language as a symbolic substitute for any real pharmacy. Suppose now that we invent a slang term ‘pill-farm’ to mean ‘pharmacy’. We now have a secondary label ‘pill-farm’ which is a second-level symbol for ‘pharmacy’. ‘Pharmacy’ in its turn is a first level symbol for a real building of a specific type.
By convention, a primary symbol is a name, but any secondary symbol is a code: a symbol which stands in place of another symbol. For purposes of clarification, I will give another example. ‘And so forth’ is a primary label or symbol for an idea. By converting it into Latin, a language spoken by few speakers of English, we encode it as ‘et cetera’. We now abbreviate it to ‘etc.’, a second level coding.
A code is not a symbol. A symbol is not a code. A symbol stands in place of an object or idea. A code stands in place of a symbol: it is a symbol for a symbol.
In computer instructions, we start with the simplest possible representations of what is going on inside a computer chip. We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: ’1′ and ’0′. These are our primary symbols and they can only be written as binary expressions.
As a convenience, we can use a form of abbreviation which is easier for humans to handle than binary. The most common such abbreviation is hexadecimal code, or hex. As an example, the binary 1010 0101 can be written as A5 in hex. Note that hex, being a secondary symbol level is a code.
When dealing with binary as computer instructions rather than as numbers it is convenient to use mnemonic codes. It may be that the binary string 1111 0000 1100 0100, or F0C4 in hex, is an instruction to the computer core, expressed as F0, to jump to memory location C4, but only IF a previously computed result was non-zero. We can write that as a mnemonic code: JNZ C4.
Such mnemonics are called assembly language. The ‘assembly’ part of the name comes from the fact that this mnemonic code needs to be assembled into a package of binary numbers in order for the computer to be able to use it as a program.
DNA is a string of molecules. There are four main components: guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine. Those names, the words ‘guanine’, ‘adenine’, ‘thymine’ and ‘cytosine’ are primary symbols invented by humans to identify the physical molecules which are found in DNA.
For convenience, we often abbreviate these symbols to CAGT, so that we can more readily handle the huge volume of data which we have accumulated about DNA. Please observe: there exists a long molecule of a type which we label DNA. It has four major components to which we assign symbols as names. We next assign symbols to the name symbols as an abbreviating code. We humans have agreed to assign the four letters CAGT as a code for the symbols which in turn stand for the molecular components of DNA.
A code is a symbol which stands in place of a symbol. The four letters CAGT most definitely form a code, being symbols for the names of the four major components of DNA. The names guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes: they are primary symbols. Primary symbols stand for real things and not for symbols. The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes. If anyone wants to call them codes, let them point to the symbols which might be replaced by these ‘codes’.
A computer code is a set of numerical values sufficient and necessary to the production of an end state from an initial state.
DNA is necessary but not sufficient to the production of an end state from an initial state.
To claim that computer code and DNA are both codes is an abuse of the power of words. It is decidedly not scientific.
Definition of CODE: 3a: A system of symbols for communication 4: Genetic Code (Webster’s 9th collegiate dictionary)
Quoting Webster’s to prove that DNA is a code is about the weakest appeal to authority I have ever seen.
It also shows that you didn’t even bother to read what I wrote.
Appeal to authority is a classic fallacy that you’ve employed more than once by quoting specific authours and disagreeing with or ignoring others.
I am using Claude Shannon’s definitions as found in his paper “A Mathematical Theory of Communication” and Yockey’s definitions in his book “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” by Hubert Yockey (Cambridge University Press, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521802938?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwperryc-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0521802938. Both use the term code in the same identical way.
The pattern formed by the four bases in DNA is a code in exactly and precisely the same way that TTL voltages in a computer are code, that magnetic domains on a hard drive are code, that pulses of light in a fiber optic cable are code, or pits on a CD-ROM are code. This is a standard engineering definition and usage of the term “code” and is universal in all literature on digital communications. Webster’s definition of code as “A system of symbols for communication” is 100% consistent with this usage. Again I quote Yockey (2005):
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
In this conversation I must insist on using standard engineering definitions that are universally accepted in scientific literature.
By the way if you want to argue about the definition of the word “code” then you need to be aware that whole conversation already happened four years ago, when my debate on the world’s largest atheist discussion board, Infidels, began. You can read all about it with links to all relevant conversations at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infidels. I’ll save you some time – you will get nowhere attempting to assert that the genetic code is a code by some strange definition that’s different than other contexts. Again, you can read the Infidels thread for an exhaustive discussion of the history of its discovery and why biologists have defined it that way for 50+ years now.
On http://cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm, in reference to http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=135497&page=1, Perry Marshall comments that “For Three Years and counting, I have successfully advanced the Information Theory argument for Intelligent Design on Infidels, the world’s largest Atheist discussion forum.” and that “The discussion continued for more than 4 months and 300 posts. At the end, nearly all participants dropped out, having failed to topple my proof or produce any new objections that had not already been addressed.”
This is a rather interesting spin on reality. Just to give folks a balanced perspective, here are actual numbers taken frum just that discussion thread:
Start of thread: August 30, 2005, 06:00 PM
Total number of postings: 1398
Total number of postings by user pmarshall (on ALL of freeratio.org): 26
Last posting on thread: March 10, 2010, 05:56 PM
Last posting by user pmarshall: October 26, 2008, 09:17 PM
I’m leaving the conclusions up to the learned reader.
you are using a theorem within a system to explain something beyond the system. whut
using something we know to describe something which we cannot know is just faith. you jump from logic to faith when you use the incompleteness theorem to make a logical induction about something beyond “everything”. you “believe” that it applies to something beyond “everything”.
in other words: beyond the scope of the universe you cannot with certainty apply knowledge that is within the universe (otherwise it would be describable by the universe and therefore part of it)
Tim,
What you’re really describing is the inherent problem of induction. Induction can give you only so much specificity; that’s why when you apply Gödel’s theorem to “whatever is outside the universe” you get a list of what God is not, rather than a list of what God is. God is not material, not matter & energy, not time, not divisible, not a system. And by the way this list is remarkably similar to Aquinas’ 5 statements about God. This summary of Aquinas is from Wikipedia:
Concerning the nature of God, Aquinas felt the best approach, commonly called the via negativa, is to consider what God is not. This led him to propose five statements about the divine qualities:
1. God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.[60]
2. God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God’s complete actuality.[61]
3. God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.[62]
4. God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God’s essence and character.[63]
5. God is one, without diversification within God’s self. The unity of God is such that God’s essence is the same as God’s existence. In Aquinas’s words, “in itself the proposition ‘God exists’ is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same.”[64]
If you sift through every single element in both my Gödel article and Aquinas’ statements with a fine-toothed comb, you can verify for yourself that it is all 100% logical.
One of the realizations that you come to is that God is “outside of” reason and logic. This at first seems disturbing until you remember that God is not divisible, God is not made up of “moving parts” and since reason and logic are about relationships between separate parts, this therefore does not make God illogical. It just makes God superior to logic by virtue of being One.
Many people have said, “Logical statements cannot be made about God.” But that statement itself is a logical statement concerning God, therefore it is self-contradictory, therefore it is not true. Logical statements CAN be made about God. And the most logical statement you can make about God is:
God IS.
Thus it makes perfect sense that Jesus, who claimed to be God, said:
“Before Abraham was, I AM.”
what youre saying is that the same rules of logic that apply within the universe apply outside the universe. you cant say this with certainty. the applicability of the theorem ends with the “edge of the universe” because it is based on logic of the universe.
in short:The universe and not the universe are not the same. “Universal” logic cant apply to outside the universe by definition
Which specific rules of logic do you think do not apply outside the universe?
For example:
If we draw a circle around all the matter in the cosmos and say that there is no matter outside that circle, are you saying that’s not a true statement?
Dear Perry,
Thank you for the interesting read on Goedel.
May I refer a small comment to your statement:
“In 1931 this young Austrian mathematician, Kurt Godel,
published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single
Theory Of Everything is actually impossible.”
To my understanding Goedels incompleteness theorem can be
stated in simple english as:
A formal system of sufficient complexity is either
or .
I assume your above statement refers only to a contradiction-free systems,
which is indeed incomplete according to Goedel. Am I correct?
Well, my comment is the following:
If you consider for a moment a contradictive system with the potential of completeness,
would this not possibly allow the existence of a theory of everything? Of course
such a theory would then include contradicitve statements…
Here I do not want to think about such a contradictive system or discuss its
usefullness. But refering to your above statement I would like to mention,
that in my understanding of Goedel, there is the possibility of a single Theory Of Everything.
Even so it would (according to Goedel) necessarily include contradictive statements.
I might be missing a point
or miss-understanding Goedel, but at least I do see this possibility of a contradictive theory.
However I admit, that it might be never understandable by the human mind, because of its
contradictions. Would be nice, if you could let me know your opinion on this comment.
Thanks & Best regards,
Starbucks
Gödel is saying that if a system is complete, it is inherently contradictory. “This sentence is false” is a perfect example of a complete system that is contradictory.
So yes a theory of everything is possible as long as it’s irrational.
This is just an interesting way of saying that if we accept that the universe is irrational, then atheism might in fact be true. Atheism can only be true if the universe is irrational.
Which is a very interesting conclusion, because the usual atheist argument is that religion is irrational and atheism is rational. Nobody prattles on and on about the superiority of their “reason and logic” more than atheists. Yes, if you are willing to be irrational then you can embrace atheism.
Dear Perry,
Thanks for your kind answer! I agree with you,
I was just curious about the possibility of an *upside down* approach on Goedel theorem using a contradictory system that gains completeness.
Best,
Starbucks
So this is still sending me reminders… which is sort of useful; I’d forgotten about it. I wanted to jump back into the fray to say that you appear, once again, to be conflating the universe with our model of the universe.
Let’s say I accept your premises (you know I don’t, but for the sake of argument) then the conclusion is that if we came up with a Grand Unified Theory, that described all the behaviour of the universe (was complete), then it would also be possible to derive a contradiction from that model, i.e. model a situation where our one model can be used to predict two (or more) mutually exclusive events.
That is very much like self-referential statements like “This statement is false”, which tells you that the statement is both false and true at the same time depending on whether you take it at face value or think it through some more, and many other “paradoxes” where you look at it one way to get one result and then think through another line of logic to get a different, contradictory result.
The difference with a model of the universe is that we can go and determine by experiment which of the contradictory results is the right one. The model may have included a contradiction as an artifact of being made complete, but we still have an external reference to go to – empirical observation of what really happens.
I think I’m beginning to see that this is a little like the Cosmological Argument, dressed up for a new era in some slightly dodgy application of mathematics. If you’d allow me to paraphrase; “All systems must have something external to themselves, and an infinite regress of systems is impossible, therefore there must be a super-system with no external factors, and this all men call god”
It’s a nice variation on the old ‘first cause’ or ‘unmoved mover’ arguments, but with the one tiny flaw that the universe is not a system of logical propositions. Godel said nothing about physical systems, and there’s nothing to stop a physical system (such as a universe) being self contained.
Now I’ve been writing too long and made myself miss breakfast… must be off.
Matt,
As I have said to others, you are welcome to reject the idea that Gödel’s theorem applies to physical things. You are free to say the universe is not a system of logical propositions if you wish.
The only problem is, you kick the legs out from under science itself when you do that. Because science assumes the universe is rational and mathematical and logical.
If E really equals MC2 and if F really equals MA then Gödel applies to the universe and the universe is incomplete.
And yes, you’re right, there’s that tired old old prime mover argument again. Reason and logic are troublesome things, aren’t they? Whether you approach the question from a physical cause and effect perspective, or an information theory perspective, or from a philosophical perspective of regression of causes, or via moral argument, or from a mathematical perspective, you keep running into the implication of an intelligent First Cause.
If atheism is true, then the universe has to be irrational and illogical. You can choose to believe that if you want. But don’t accuse Christians of being illogical. This thread has been going for months and nobody’s shown any flaw in my logic.
I choose reason and logic. They lead me to God and I accept that. I likewise invite you to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Your logic is very close to flawless. I very much liked this article, and honestly, impressed.
However, I do have an issue. I haven’t checked on the formal proof of the theorem yet, but I’ll take your word for it. You have an unwarranted assumption in your argument.
You assumed that whatever is outside the universe is boundless, and that is the assumption. If the universe is explained by something outside of itself, then that thing is also explained by something outside of itself, and this process would never stop, and we have an infinite amount of causes, and not one single cause. You have no clue or proof that suggests that we should assume whatever caused the universe cannot have a circle drawn around it. If the universe is any clue, circles will be drawn infinitely. Maybe the universe is part of a finite multi-verse that is part of a multi-multi-verse ad infinitum.
In summary: You proved that every ring of the chain needs a ring ahead of it, but then you assumed the chain we’re connected to is infinite, which is in no way a given. Looking at the ring we are, I say it is more likely that this chain is simply infinitely long, with finite rings.
A process of cause and effect that never stops is called “infinite regression” and is almost universally rejected by philosophers. Look up “infinite regression” on Wikipedia for clarification and why that is not logical or acceptable. An ad infinitum scenario is not rational.
If universe(s) are infinite, we have no evidence of them. Everything we know about cosmology says the universe is finite. And if the universe or even a past series of universes are finite, then they are incomplete and require a transcendent cause.
Perry,
Having done a rather extensive amount of research on the subject and having discussed the matter both with mathematicians and philosophers, the concensus is that you’ve extrapolated to beyond what Godel was doing in the first place.
His First Incompleteness Theorem stated “Any adequate axiomatizable theory is incomplete. In particular, the sentence ‘This sentence is not provable.’ is true but not provable in the theory.
What he discovered and formalized was –
For any sentence s,
(1) is in PROVABLE iff s is provable.
Since the set of axioms is computably generable,
so is the set of proofs which use these axioms and
so is the set of provable theorems and hence
so is PROVABLE, the set of encodings of provable theorems.
Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, PROVABLE is definable.
Let s be the sentece “This sentence is unprovable”.
By Tarski (Undefinability of Truth Theroem), s exists since it is the solution of:
(2) s iff is not in PROVABLE
Thus
(3) s iff is not in PROVABLE iff s is not provable.
Now s is either true or false.
If s is false, then by (3), s is provable
This is impossible since provable sentences are true.
Thus s is true.
Thus by (3), s is not provable.
Hence s is true but unprovable.
Godel discovered that the sentence “This sentence is unprovable” was provably equivalent to the sentence:
CON: “There is no with both and in PROVABLE”.
CON is the formal statement that the system is consistent.
Since s was not provable, and since s and CON are equivalent, CON is not provable.
Thus –
Godel’s SECOND Incompleteness Theorem:
In any consistent axiomatizable theory (axiomatizable means the axioms can be computably generated) which can encode sequences of numbers (and thus the syntactic notions of “formula”, “sentence”, “proof”) the consistency of the system is not provable in the system.
The theories of real numbers, of complex numbers, and of Euclidean geometry do have complete axiomatizations. Hence THESE THEORIES HAVE NO TRUE BUT UNPROVABLE SENTENCES. The reason they escape the conclusion of the first incompleteness theorm is their inadequacy, they can’t encode and computably deal with finite sequences.
So… it’s a mischaracterisation AT BEST to try to use Godel’s theorem to extropolate the existence of god because, if math and science is correct, which we have every reason to believe, our universe HAS NO TRUE BUT UNPROVABLE FACTS. The notion of science is that at some point, everything is explicable.
And scene.
The problem with your argument is your final statement:
“The notion of science is that at some point, everything is explicable.”
Gödel shows that if it is explicable (consistent) then it is necessarily incomplete.
Science itself is incomplete. It cannot explain itself. Historically, science came from the theological proposition that the universe operated according to fixed, discoverable laws. Believe in God was necessary for science to even get off the ground. More at:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq/#christian
Perry,
You could take away the final statement and you’re still left with the one before it as a problem with your argument:
“…if math and science is correct, which we have every reason to believe, our universe HAS NO TRUE BUT UNPROVABLE FACTS.”
Science is based on the assumption that the universe is complete in and of itself. Similar to the way Euclidean Geometry, real numbers and complex numbers are not subject to Godel’s Theorem; if the universe is a complete system, it too is beyond the scope of Godel’s theorem.
Godel’s theorem deals with the paradox inherent in an incomplete system. It doesn’t deal with labelling complete systems incomplete and then ipso facto, there’s something outside the system.
Ben,
Science does not assume that the universe is complete in and of itself. In fact science makes all kinds of unprovable assumptions, such as the assumption that the universe is logical.
You cannot truly prove that, you can only demonstrate that it’s a workable hypothesis.
And I’m sorry but you’re mistaken, Euclidean Geometry, real and complex numbers ARE subject to Gödel’s theorem. That’s the whole point of the theorem. That every system of mathematics is incomplete.
Syllogism:
1. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem applies to all logical systems.
2.The universe is logical
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete.
Godel himself postulated that his theorem did not apply to Real and Complex number systems as they contained no paradoxical statements.
Are you suggesting that you have a better understanding of his theorem than he himself did?
In addition, science DOES assume that the universe is a complete system. It also assumes that the universe is describable. Science is based on all sorts of assumptions. Fortunately, SCIENCE ITSELF is an INCOMPLETE SYSTEM that depends on THE UNIVERSE for completeness.
I need you to quote Gödel’s exact statement regarding real and complex number systems.
If the universe is logical, then the universe also is incomplete.
Ben is right, Perry.
Read “Gödel, Escher, Bach,” by Douglas Hofstadter for more on why real and complex number systems are not caught by Gödel’s Theorem.
Gödel’s Theorem only deals with formulae derived from axiomatic systems of numbers.
Basic addition cannot derive formulae. It is a complete system that can be proved in its entirety
asin:
You first define the symbols – In this case, they are the numerals 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and the two symbols + and =. Next we need to define our rules. In the case of addition, the rules are as follows:
•All the basic results of adding two single-digit numbers together. e.g. 0+0=0, 0+1=1, …, 1+2=3, … 9+9=18. In other words, the basic addition table.
•The rules of how to add together multi-digit numbers using the above rules. i.e. You start at the right-most digits, add those, determine if you need to carry a digit, etc.
An important feature of this theory of addition is that you can then use the system to prove any statement of addition. “Prove” in this context has a very precise meaning. It means that you can take a statement written in symbols, like 79+3=82, and generate that sequence of symbols using nothing but the explicitly defined rules of the theory. How does one generate this sequence of symbols?
The simplest method is to start with the numbers before the equals sign (79 and 3) and add them using our rules. That produces 82, and we know we can write the resulting sum as 79+3=82. That proves (using the rules of our theory) that the statement is correct. The important thing to note is that we are doing all of this merely by manipulation of symbols. We don’t have to think about, understand, or even know that there exist semantic meanings for these symbols. We don’t need to know that “79″ can mean a number of objects. In other words, we could teach this sort of addition to someone without explaining to them that the symbol “3″ means “three”.
We can instruct a computer to do addition like this without the computer having any understanding of what it means to have three objects. All the computer is doing is manipulating a bunch of arbitrary symbols based upon a set of well-defined rules.
If you set up a formal theory of mathematics correctly, you should be able to prove any true statement, and be unable to prove any false statement. This is true of our simple theory of addition. In fact, we can prove every true statement about the addition of two non-negative integers with nothing more than what I have described so far.
To do this, perform the following steps:
1.Start with two numbers 0 and 0; remember these. Work out the addition of these two numbers according to the rules of addition, and write the result (in this case: 0+0=0).
2.If the two numbers we are remembering are equal, add 1 to the second number. But if the two numbers are unequal then check the second number: If it is not 0, increase the first number by 1 and decrease the second by 1. But if the second number is 0, set it equal to the first number plus 1, and set the first number back to 0.
3.Work out: (first number)+(second number) and add that to our list of results.
4.Return to step 2.
This procedure works out the following sums in this order: 0+0, 0+1, 1+0, 0+2, 1+1, 2+0, 0+3, 1+2, 2+1, 3+0, 0+4, … Now, no matter what true statement of addition we can think of, say 75843+87249=163092, this procedure will eventually produce a proof that it is true. It may take a long time, but it will eventually get there. This is what the “computably enumerable” bit of Gödel’s theorem means: there is some procedure by which we can (eventually) generate any possible proof in the theory.
For complete systems, Gödel’s Theorem does not apply. There are no contradictory statements.
Not to mention this little bit of information:
You said that philosophers reject the notion of infinite regression. I accept that.
Philosophers also rejected the idea that Gödel’s theorem could apply even to the human MIND, much less the entire universe. So you extrapolated well beyond what philosophy and math had to say and you’ve made your own (inaccurate) syllogism.
That’s fine. You’re welcome to your beliefs. Please just understand that your arguments are fatally flawed.
I’m not sure why you or Ben assert that Gödel’s relation to real or imaginary numbers then implies that the universe is not subject to incompleteness.
You said, “Basic addition cannot derive formulae.” Science asserts that the universe operates according to a whole range of formulae. Gödel says, all formulae rely on axioms that cannot be proven within themselves. So I’m not seeing how you’ve escaped incompleteness.
As for the mind, Alan Turing believed that the human mind was a Turing Machine and thus human brains are simply performing computation. Turing believed that free will is an illusion.
Gödel believed that free will is real, that intuition and human thought is something beyond mere computation. Gödel also believed in God and he believed that human beings are spiritual creatures. As I understand, he starved himself to death to prove that he had free will that was not determined by the physics and chemistry of his body.
I’m not aware that any philosopher has definitively proven one or the other to be right. So far as I can see it’s an unsettled question. It seems to me that this issue brings us right back to the age old mind/body problem in philosophy, and the question of free will vs. determinism.
What do you think? Do you believe that you are a conscious volitional agent who truly has the ability to freely choose? Or do you believe that your own actions and beliefs are determined by a mechanical process?
“I’m not sure why you or Ben assert that Gödel’s relation to real or imaginary numbers then implies that the universe is not subject to incompleteness.”
Because you said that Gödel’s Theorem applies to all logical systems. Addition is logical. Gödel’s Theorem does not apply to addition. Therefore Gödel’s Theorem does NOT apply to all logical systems. QED
“You said, “Basic addition cannot derive formulae.” Science asserts that the universe operates according to a whole range of formulae.”
No. Science postulates formulae to explain the operation of the universe. The universe does not operate according to our formulae. Also, and more importantly, the UNIVERSE did not derive the formulae. We did.
“Gödel says, all formulae rely on axioms that cannot be proven within themselves. So I’m not seeing how you’ve escaped incompleteness.”
Gödel never said any such thing. He said, “When using an axiomatic system to derive formulae, it is possible to derive a formula within the system that is not provable using the system therefore the system is incomplete.” Again, we don’t use the universe to derive formulae. We use science to derive forumlae about the universe.
“As for the mind, Alan Turing believed that the human mind was a Turing Machine and thus human brains are simply performing computation. Turing believed that free will is an illusion.”
Yes, and many philosophers disagreed with him.
“Gödel believed that free will is real, that intuition and human thought is something beyond mere computation. Gödel also believed in God and he believed that human beings are spiritual creatures. As I understand, he starved himself to death to prove that he had free will that was not determined by the physics and chemistry of his body.”
All true, but you neglect to mention that Gödel didn’t use his theorem as an argument for God because he knew it did not prove the existence of God. Gödel instead built on the work of Descartes and Leibniz and tried to craft an ontological argument for the existence of God.
“I’m not aware that any philosopher has definitively proven one or the other to be right. So far as I can see it’s an unsettled question.”
Certainly. In fact, many things that are commonly accepted are frequently debated by philosophers. However, many many philosophers have rejected the notion that Gödel’s Theorem applies to the human mind simply BECAUSE of free will. Free will isn’t necessarily a consistent, axiomatic system, is their straightforward argument.
“What do you think? Do you believe that you are a conscious volitional agent who truly has the ability to freely choose? Or do you believe that your own actions and beliefs are determined by a mechanical process?”
This is a kind of straw man as it is so far removed from what we were discussing, but I was never one to shy away from answering. I believe in a combination of the two, of course. We make choices, certainly. But I also believe in chemical addiction, and chemical imbalance which skews our ability to make decisions and sometimes even prevents us entirely from executing free will.
Arthur,
I have a lot of thoughts about this. But first I would like you and/or Ben to reference exactly what Gödel said in regards to real and imaginary number systems being both consistent and complete at the same time, and exactly what Hofstadter said.
Computable systems are deterministic. Free will is not computable, by definition not deterministic and not decideable in advance.
Perry,
In “Gödel, Escher, Bach”, Hofstadter spends a number of pages discussing his arbitrary theory called “Typographical Number Theory” or TNT, “which is one attempt to represent all of math in an axiomatic way. I’m going to assume that TNT works–that is, assume that it really does encapsulate all of mathematics perfectly…And eventually, I’m going to be led to a contradiction.”
He says, “…assumed that TNT is perfect, and proceeds from there to a paradox. In doing so, it crushes any system which makes similar claims of perfection.”
He then spends the next several pages putting forth his system and discussing its incompleteness via Gödel.
He addresses the sentence “Sentence G: This statement is not a theorem of TNT.”
If sentence G is false, then it is a theorem of TNT. Then we have a valid theorem which is false, and the whole system falls apart.
So it must be true. But if it is true, then it is not a theorem of TNT. Which means that “sentence G is true, but it is not provable within TNT.
That is Gödel’s “incompleteness,” that TNT, although it may be perfectly consistent and always correct, cannot possibly prove EVERY true statement about number theory, there is always something which is true, which the system cannot prove. So we’re done!
“Except that, as you may have noticed, this is totally ludicrous. After all, TNT makes statements about numbers, and sentence G is a statement about a statement (itself). So while writing a TNT-string for “100 is a power of 10″ might be very difficult, it seems reasonable to grant that it’s possible; but translating sentence G into TNT seems about as likely as yodeling in sign language.”
He then spends the next several pages doing just that, however. He expresses G in terms of the system itself in a computable way and discusses Gödel all the while.
also,
Read about Torkel Franzen and specifically his book “Gödel’s Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to its Use and Abuse” ISBN 1-56881-238-8
and also,
http://www.ams.org/notices/200604/fea-franzen.pdf
He spent most of his professional life speaking to common misconceptions or misapplication of Gödel’s Theorem.
Arthur,
If your point or Ben’s point is to demonstrate that there is such a thing as a system that is both consistent and complete, I cannot discern that either one of you has successfully done so. When I get to the end of GEB’s chapter on TNT, he circles back to the conclusion that “Any system that is strong enough to prove TNT’s consistency is at least as strong as TNT itself.”
Which is just another way of saying that to prove what’s inside the circle, you need something from a bigger circle.
Where I differ with Hofstadter is where he concludes on p. 230 “and so circularity is inevitable.” That is a misrepresentation of what Gödel says and of the progression of his own chapter on TNT. Logic is not a huge set of circular propositions. It’s a progression of inductions that ultimately rest on axioms that are known to be true but are not provable.
I think a significant problem with this discussion so far has been an ambiguity with the language used, which has meant a bit of back and forth with no real change in the arguments. There have also been some misunderstandings of Gödel’s theorem, which is understandable, as unless you have studied mathematics, analogies tend to obscure the strict meaning of it.
Firstly we can agree that a non self-referential statement is either exactly true, or not exactly true. Secondly Gödel’s theorem refers to a set of statements, split into two groups, those we label “axioms”, and statements derived from those. The theorem essentially states that if the “axioms”, which are the statements we assume to be true, are true, then there are also other true statements that cannot be derived from those axioms, and that those axioms cannot be proven to be true without the addition of a new axiom. The corollary is that if a proof of the truth of the axioms is derived from the axioms, then the axioms are not true (in their entirety). I’m going to use a bit of an analogy for this next part, if you can forgive me for that, as I personally find analogies highly dubious. In mathematics sequences of numbers can be of particular interest, and these can be generated through formulae, or can exist independent of any formulae. Now what is particularly interesting is that for any finite sequence there are an infinite number of different formulae that can generate the same sequence, so when attempting to find the formula for generating a sequence you may have found one that matches all available data, yet not be the correct one. I guess that wasn’t particularly an analogy so much as a cut-down version of universal laws, however that is not the point I am aiming to make. Within this analogy the universe is the sequence of numbers, the formulae which determines it’s behaviour are the laws of the universe, and our estimation of the formulae are our current laws of physics. Now the point that Matt was making, and perhaps you misunderstood, is that the sequence of numbers, and the formulae are different things, he was not arguing that Gödel’s theorem did not apply, merely reminding you that it only applies to sets of statements i.e. the formulae, not the sequence, the laws of the universe, not the universe itself. He is not arguing against logic, merely stating that you have applied it in the incorrect place. Now as it happens I am an atheist, I believe that there is no God, however I am not so presumptuous as to claim it as a certainty, indeed I do not believe it is possible to know whether or not there is a God. I am merely arguing that this particular path of logic is invalid.
With regards to causality, it can be broken down fairly simply, either everything requires a cause, in which case a being without cause does not exist by definition(granted this does not forbid a being with a cause which created the universe from existing), or not everything requires a cause, in which case the universe does not demand the existence of a God without cause(although one is possible). With regards as to codes, we really need to clarify what you exactly mean here in your argument, as if you define a code to be a message intended to send information, then all codes are the work of sentient minds merely by definition.
Gödel’s theorem is about systems of logic.
I cannot prove that the universe is a logical system. However, the assumption that it is is the cornerstone of modern science. If the universe is logical then it is also incomplete.
I define communication systems per Claude Shannon’s 1948 paper “A mathematical theory of communication” which applies to things like telegraphs, CD players, computers, cell phones, etc.
All communication systems we know the origin of are designed. No known exceptions.
Sorry but ‘god’ must also have something ‘outside its circle’
Godel proved that you cannot have a god which explains himself.
Atheism also says that.
NOTHING can understand it all. God CANNOT exist.
Bob,
If NOTHING can understand it all, how is it that you can then say “God CANNOT” exist?
As for your first statement, you don’t appear to have followed the logic of my argument. You need to substantiate your statements with logic.
I think what Bob is trying to say is that, according to the incompleteness theorem, there is always a bigger circle, and a god cannot be totally on the outside of the system, there would have to be something outside that circle to explain god. Similarly, one cannot know everything, because that would put him outside the system, he can explain the whole system’s existence. That wouldn’t disprove a conscious entity being outside the universe, but that would indicate that he is not all-knowing or omniscient.
Bob didn’t read any of the 12 times I already addressed that objection.
Yea, so I have no problem with your logic in saying that “god” exists, but I do have a problem with the assumption that this god is the christian god. Every logical proof of “god” simply defines god as something undefinable. That does not, in any way, mean that the christian god is the god that created the universe. Religion is made up to answer unanswerable questions (or at least unanswerable at the time of its inception) and as a means of social control, and to give hope, and meaning and blah blah blah.
Also, almost every response you’ve made to people goes along the lines of, “If you think that, you obviously reject science and are an idiot.” Not very classy….
But, yeah, christians are illogical for saying the god of the bible is the god that started the universe. The only conclusion you can come to is that something must have started the universe, assuming Goedels theorem applies (which, as has been stated, really doesn’t apply to the universe, go ahead and tel me I’m an idiot for saying that, it’s fine).
Also, I would like to question, what is the significance of all of this? Does if affect anybody in anyway? I really don’t think it does. I’m just bored and want to get into this heated discussion, heh.
I’m sorry for my choppy/poorly thought out comment. ADD is not my friend this night.
Look out your front door. Turn on your TV. Look at this discussion thread.
I invite you to answer your own question:
Does the truth about God – do claims about God – affect anybody?
Still getting those email reminders every so often… odd that they don’t seem to come through for all the replies, but then I suddenly get 10 at once. Oh well. Wanted to reply to this specifically: “Does the truth about God – do claims about God – affect anybody?”
If god existed and had a measurable effect on the physical universe, it would bring it under the purview of science – god would be like the force of gravity; observable, measurable, predictable. Maybe not so predictable as gravity, but we could reason about the effects of god on the universe.
Funny thing is, we haven’t observed any supernatural effects on the universe; nothing that can’t be reduced down to naturalistic physical principles. So in a very real sense, the existence or not of god has no effect. If god does exist, he’s not doing anything with any noticeable effect, so why care?
We tend not to believe in the existence of things with no observable effects though; that’s the only way to keep obvious absurdities like invisible goblins and Russel’s teapot out of our belief system.
Another sidenote; your website remembers my name and email perfectly, but seems to have complete amnesia on the question of whether I want your “free mini-course” delivered to my email. It’s the strangest thing, almost as if you’re hoping repeat-commenters will eventually forget to untick the box and inadvertently sign up for your mailing. But of course you wouldn’t do a sleazy thing like that, so I’m sure it’s just a bug in the server.
Matt,
We have observed supernatural effects in the universe. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq for a discussion on the lower half of the page. In any large public library you will find an entire section on documented cases of miracles. Just because they’re politically incorrect doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I describe my own personal experiences at http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles
Reason concerning the effects of God on the universe is a field known in academia as theology. I invite you to set aside the pejorative attitude and follow the evidence where it leads.
Interesting article, but Matt did a very effective job of demonstrating that the universe is a physical, actual system, not reliant upon abstract axioms to prove its existence.
Sorry, but Matt is very clearly better informed on this issue. The language of the article oversimplifies the theorem so as to allow the author’s worldview to seem better justified. The comments made a nice read, though.
Ben, I have two questions for you:
1. Is the universe logical?
2. Can you name any law of physics that is not expressed as mathematical or logical statement?
I haven’t read all the replies above so I am probably repeating some people but below are the flaws or premises that I disagree with in your argument.
1) You define God as what is outside the largest circle. As the number of circles is infinite it is meaningless to talk about the largest circle. Gödel’s theorem suggests that all things depend on something else, if a god exists and is subject to our laws of mathematics then it is no exception, therefore by use of modus tollens if a god is subject to our mathematics then it must be dependent on something else to exist.
The existence of a god is not necessary to explain how something can be true despite depending on an infinite chain of assumptions. It is clearly wrong to say that because each natural number requires you to assume that there exists a larger natural number that there must be a god that is larger than the largest natural number. The natural numbers and, if Gödel’s theorem is true, the ever increasing circles that depend upon things they do not contain are infinite
2) All codes must come from a conscious being. You are using a double meaning of the word code, its normal meaning is a message from one conscious being to another that has be altered to make it difficult for those who are not its intended reader to understand. DNA is referred to as a code because it contains information that is difficult to understand, the same could be said of many things that do not originate from a conscious being, pulsars (rotating neutron stars) are a simple example, we receive from them a brief burst of radiation which we can decode to gain information about the star.
3) A being can be conscious, boundless and without cause. To me conscious seems to cause problems when combined with the following properties; if something is conscious then it is aware of itself, if it is boundless then there is an infinite amount of itself that it has to be aware of, information from its farthest edges would have to travel with infinite speed to cover an infinite distance in finite time. If it is without cause then it must have existed forever, over an infinite quantity of time a conscious being would go through an infinite amount of thoughts and would end up unable to think anything new and robotically repeat through previous states, this is not a contradiction but is probably not how most would think of a god. The same problem occurs with an omniscient god as if truly omniscient it would know in advance what it was going to think and do and at the correct time would think and perform those actions like a robot.
4) In what little of the comments you mention the Holy Trinity so I shall assume you are referring to the Christian God. This is where your argument really falls to pieces, you go from trying to prove the existence of a potential creator to the existence of three very specific Gods. There is nothing in your debate on Gödel that applies to the Christian Gods and could not apply to Ra the ancient Egyptian Sun God or to the thousands of gods that humanity has worshiped throughout history, or to any of the millions that I could invent, name and create a back-story for right now. Assuming that all other points I have made are false and your argument is sound you have still proved nothing other than a vague conscious being outside our universe that somehow proves some things in our universe to be true.
Finally I would like to thank you for the excellent quality of the first part of you argument, it is one of the best explanations of Gödel’s theorem I have ever read, I apologize for the length of this piece but may add more if I think of anything else.
1. There is not an infinite number of circles, because the universe is finite.
2. I am using the exact same definition of code for biology as I am for computers etc etc. This is explained in extensive detail at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/information-theory-made-simple/ and elsewhere on my site. Pulsars are not digital commuication systems.
3. You are defining an infinite being in terms of space but I clearly explained that God is outside of space and time and I explained the logic behind this with care in the article. Got is not matter, not energy, not space, not time. Information does not travel from one end of God to another in packets. Please go back and read my statements with care. Your statements about infinite amounts of thoughts are self contradictory since any infinite sequence by definition never repeats itself.
4. The Trinity does not say there are three specific Gods. Please do not misquote me, and if you wish to critique the theology of the trinity then please avail yourself of theologians who have written about it such as Augustine, Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards etc. Or read exactly what I have written: That God is ONE and is in complete unity has three aspects: Self intent, expression of intent, and understanding of self.
Bizzare:
1- Assume the whole universe is just:
The concept of the number 1.
The concept of the number 2.
The concept of sum.
We can draw a circle around the whole universe and safely say that 1+1=2 without the need for external reference.
2-I think not. You’re assuming that, using the same logic the article points as flawed (inductive reasoning). It reads “you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time”, and while this logic can be used to reach some truth it can also lead to fallacies. It isn’t as safe to assume that all codes come from a conscious being as saying that gravity makes things fall.
3- You’re just trying to say god exists
4- You’re trying to hide the fact from #3.
1. If you say 1+1=2 you reference numbers and symbols which are outside the universe you just defined. In your own description you are standing outside of the universe. The whole thing still depends on you.
2. Show me a naturally occurring code. Just one.
The “unknown” agent outside the circle always somehow seems to point to one’s favorite religion or metaphysics (the immaterial vs. material). The true incompleteness perhaps lies in the symbolic, linear conceptions human understanding is stuck with. This theorem FALSIFIES it does not give positive verification to speculations or personal convictions. It is much too easy and sloppy to interpret the limits of understanding as reflected by our greatest proofs as an excuse for thought termination and to fill in the cosmology of the unknown and unreachable with all too human answers.
As for “code” the human mind has a tendency to see patterns everywhere, even in vacuum energy. Using this as proof of supernatural intelligence (since these things are everywhere in the universe) violates the very theorem you are misusing (the circle would prove itself). Intelligence is itself recognized through quite finite and definable parameters that are always experienced well within the circle. If human intelligence and the tragic world of crude matter and its pointless replication and destruction are really some positive indication of what lies beyond, a perfect God would have to be exchanged for a perfect monster, which would have to “inductively determine” from the very cruelty of nature. A cruelty, by the way, which intelligence only seems to make MORE insanely devious, not less. God should do us a favor therefore, to remain an Impersonality.
Codes are not a subjective impression on the human mind, they objectively exist. DNA is decoded by the ribosomes whether we see it and acknowledge it and describe it or not.
I suppose various people have tried to tell you that God is some kind of cosmic teddy bear, but you surely did not get that from me. Indeed, surely if nature tells you anything, it tells you that God can be wild and ferocious. If nature tells you anything about God, it also tells you that God can be soft, tender and beautiful.
Open your eyes, look around you, and see.
And as you do so, do not neglect to distinguish the difference between what God has created and what man has destroyed.
I would invite you to open yourself to understanding God as God really is, and follow the evidence where it leads.
“Codes are not a subjective impression on the human mind, they objectively exist. DNA is decoded by the ribosomes whether we see it and acknowledge it and describe it or not.”
Their physical reality is precisely why describing the process as a code is flawed. Take a symbolic system like writing, we take information from our thoughts and ideas and encode it into letters, words, sentences, all according to the rules of our language. None of these odd little squiggles on paper or a screen make any objective sense, the information can only be retrieved by conscious understanding of the symbols and the language.
DNA is different; the chemical properties of the molecule are what allow a ribosome to take a string of DNA as a template for building a protein. The base pairs quite naturally have some affinity for each other, and amongst the millions of chance collisions between molecules in cell chemistry that lets the ribosome find the right strand of tRNA to pull an amino acid from to build a protein.
I’m not a molecular chemist, so I don’t know every detail… but if I remember rightly I think the ‘affinity’ stems from the shape of the amino acid being conducive to the formation of hydrogen bonding. It’s not too horribly complicated but it’s been a long while since I’ve had cause to think about it.
The important part is that it all happens chemically; the ribosome isn’t required to understand what it’s doing, it isn’t “decoding” the DNA in any real sense – it’s just a protein that reacts with DNA and RNA molecules in such a way that some other protein is formed.
The defining difference is that our symbolic codes have no objective relation to the information they represent. Nothing really links the letter A to an “ah” sound, or any of our words to their meanings, except for our minds and the associations they store as language. With the genetic ‘code’ the DNA molecule and the protein synthesised are related by deterministic chemistry. You could decide to redefine a word, you couldn’t redefine a DNA sequence.
GGG is not Glycine, it is instructions for making Glycine. AAA is not Lycine, it is instructions for making Lycine. DNA has start bits, stop bits, error correction mechanisms, pointers, objects. CD players don’t “understand” what they’re decoding either but they decode just the same.
If you want to debate this, you may do so on the Cosmic Fingerprints website. But you will need to do your research first – this ground has been thoroughly covered on my website for 4+ years now. See http://cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htm, http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq. These definitions have been universal for 50 years.
In short, you will get nowhere with this argument. DNA is just as much a coding system as your hard drive. In fact the list of similarities is long indeed.
Perry,
We think your main misinterpretation is that you believe Gödel’s theorem applies to the physical universe. You say, basically, that Godel’s theorem applies to science because science is made of logic. Therefore, science is either incomplete or inconsistent. We agree. But because humanity can change what it believes, science adapts to evidence to remain consistent. This leaves only the possibility that science is incomplete. We think you will agree with this.
But you then say that Godel’s theorem applies to the Universe and/or Multiverse, because it can be described by science. Wait, didn’t We just say that science is incomplete? That would mean that science does not fully describe the Universe/Multiverse, and therefore is in some way wrong. So Godel’s theorem cannot apply to the universe, because we do not actually know it is a system. Even if we did, we would not know it’s limits.
Additionally, Godel’s theory could be applied to itself if we use your ‘put something in a circle’ interpretation, which is wrong anyway. If we did this, it would prove itself wrong, meaning you entire argument is, in fact, invalid.
You need to pick an argument and stick with it.
Gödel’s theorem does not prove itself wrong because his theorem is also based on axioms. For example the assumption that peano arithmetic is valid. He wrote his original proof in peano arithmetic.
You’re right, science is also incomplete. No matter how much we know about science, if it is consistent it will require something outside of itself to verify its truth. There we go again – eventually we need Something that is outside the universe.
Science ASSUMES that the universe is logical. It cannot prove this. If the universe is logical, it is incomplete.
You misunderstand. Science does not assume. If science were to say that an object will fall, due to gravity, at roughly 9.81 meters per second, minus the effect of friction from the air, there are no assumptions. Literally countless examples of evidence are available, and on the off chance that an object were to behave in a different way than expected, the scientific ‘laws’ we currently accept would adapt to include that to remain as accurate as possible. The thing that science depends upon is the Universe.
Also, if the Universe is an axiomatic system that depends on a ‘god’ figure to have created it, the god would need a cause. Now, We know you will argue with this. But consider: If your ‘god’ created the universe, something must have happened to spur that action. And something must have spurred that, leading to an endless loop of logic. If we discard the endless loop, we come to the conclusion that your god is unchanging, having nothing to change it. An unchanging entity would not do anything other than what it is already doing, because it cannot change from that pattern. So the universe must have a cause, or not exist.
From Dictionary.Reference.com:
in·fer·ence (?n’f?r-?ns)
n.
1.
The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
(emphasis mine)
Science INFERS that all objects on earth fall at 9.81 meters per second. Science infers that the law of gravity is the same everywhere in the universe. Science infers that the law of gravity was the same 1 million years ago and will be the same next year as it is now.
An inference is indeed an ASSUMPTION that the specific can be applied to the general. You cannot deductively prove these things about gravity. You can only assume (HYPOTHESIZE), then do an experiment that confirms the hypothesis. A successful experiment is not a formal deductive proof. It is a confirmation of our own prior assumptions and a validation of inference as a way of knowing things.
In this case, “knowing” is always provisional, because, as you say, if an object were to behave in a different way than expected, the scientific ‘laws’ we currently accept would adapt to include that to remain as accurate as possible. You are correct in putting the word ‘laws’ in quotations. Science is always provisional.
You are assuming (there’s that word again) that because God’s nature is unchanging, that therefore nothing in God’s universe can change and that God cannot cause anything. That is a non-sequitur. You are conflating God’s nature with God’s actions. Let’s trace the logic:
1. The universe must have a cause, or not exist – that much is true.
2. The universe cannot be the result of an infinite regression of causes because that’s irrational. Also true.
3. Therefore there is a first cause, which is without prior cause. That is also a logical necessity.
4. Therefore the first cause caused all subsequent effects.
5. Therefore the first cause is capable of causing things outside of itself.
Clearly, you have thought this through for more time and in more depth than We have. So, We will close with this statement: We wish for you to remember that deductive reasoning is worthless without conclusive proof, just as experimentation is worthless without reason to support the conclusions. Furthermore, a lack of evidence for either argument is not eveidence supporting the other argument. In fact, We agree that there is a god, We merely wish to be clear that all we can do is speculate. There is no proof in this debate, and so none of Us can ever truly be ‘correct’.
If you draw the biggest circle around everything, you’re not leaving anything outside, you have from the explainable to the unexplainable inside, it doesn’t matter if it can be explained or not, everything is inside thus there will be no need for outside reference.
What this theorem seems to do is first to expose some really good logic, it certainly is right in smaller scales and/or when using the adequate example (the bike for instance), once it has proved that this reasoning can work it proceeds to use the same statement with everything else, assuming that if it worked there it must always work.
I have to admit I was agreeing with it, but the part about inductive reasoning clearly reveals a flaw. While it is true that inductive reasoning can lead to mistakes, it isn’t the case every time, because you can prove things, even if you start looking at the facts from the inner circle. Gravity being of those provable ideas. You also have to keep in mind that some things, when explained or researched upon, give more questions than answers, and this is another issue used to support this Incompleteness theorem, but it’s just a part of the search for an answer, and raising questions helps to nothing but to better understand everything, the more questions the closer to the truth we get.
I believe this theorem can be both flawed and perfect depending on the circumstances. And that it suffers from the same misuse of general relativity Once I had a very fiery discussion with a friend who said that everything, from matter and energy to concepts are relative, to which I replied that concepts can be constant, as units like 1 meter, the concept of 1 meter can not be relative, maybe the tool used to measure differs, maybe it has shorter centimeters, but the concept will not change under any circumstances. Perhaps this is the case.
I want to finish saying that I don’t reject the idea, humankind will probably never discover the secrets of everything (I’d bet to 42 tho), but I had to speak up because I think that some of the logic in the article is somewhat off.
“* Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.”
while this may be true, you can also always draw a circle around the CAUSE…therefore the cause cannot be outside the circle
“* All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.
* Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.”
Oh, where to start? LOL
1) Information is a thing…maybe not in the physical sense, but it still exists, and is therefore IN the circle.
2)Just because all the codes THAT WE KNOW are the creations of conscious beings in no way shape or form implies that all codes must be such creation. It only suggests that there are codes that we are unfamiliar with.
3)once again, if someTHING exists outside of the circle to generate information, or anything else for that matter, logic would dictate that you could then draw a larger circle that would encompass that creator as well
If you want to make a logical argument, it usually helps to actually USE logic and not just tiptoe around it
Graeme,
You will need to read the other responses to other posts in this thread. Every issue you have brought up here has already been addressed.
In a loose sense of the world “address”. You’ve diligently responded to all my comments, but I’m not convinced you’ve really given a satisfactory answer. I and others have asked you to demonstrate that DNA really is a consciously designed code, without appeal to “all codes are consciously designed”, and “DNA certainly is a code” (I could accept either one of those, but not both at once, depending on whether you take ‘code’ to imply conscious design by definition or not)
Fundamentally, you can’t assert something to be true of all codes, then use it as proof about a specific case; to make the general statement requires the proof of the specific case. And yet, your own “proof” of DNA being designed by a mind follows as: (1) DNA is a code (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
Point 3 simply does not follow from points 1 and 2. You’re effectively trying to establish the origin of DNA _from_ now knowing the origin of DNA. If you have a way to demonstrate the conscious origins of what I hold to be a naturally occurring code (or a non-code if you really want to assume code to imply conscious origin) then I’d love to see it, but I’m still waiting.
(And before you ask) my proposed origin for the system would be a very rudimentary genetic molecule, likely to be RNA, synthesised by prebiotic chemistry and having just barely enough complexity to get a copy of itself made. Once that foundation is in place, mutation and selection over vast spans of time could arrive at the much more efficient system we see now.
Oh, and I may have made the mistake I’ve been hoping I wouldn’t and just clicked submit with the little box ticked. (If this is a duplicate comment via double-submission, please feel free to delete the first) No matter, a little gmail-fu will sort that one out.
New codes are created all the time. Recent examples from the last 20 years include PDF, HTML, DLL, JPG, MOV, DOC, XLS. Each of these is distinctly different from the others, using in some cases radically different coding structures. All of the above are stored / transported on dozens of different kinds of media including CD-R, hard drives, laser light, voltage pulses etc.
If the question is stated as: “Is there a natural chemical process that produces codes? Or do we have reason to believe there is some sort of Intelligence behind biology” then Point 3 naturally follows from points 1 & 2. In science this is called inference.
Please support your proposed origin theory with an experiment. Preferably an experiment that is not designed. The ideal would be an example of biogenesis from some “warm pond” somewhere.
Or show me ANY code created from scratch by any process other than design. All you need is one.
1) All known plates are designed by conscious minds.
2) The earth has tectonic plates.
3) The earth was designed by a conscious mind.
This is what happens when you play fast and loose with semantics.Just because you’ve used the word “code” instead of plate people get all confused and mystified, but it amounts to the same thing.
Now let’s see what happens when you abuse metaphors:
1) All known sandwiches are created with the intention of being eaten.
2) The solar system is sandwiched between other galactic formations.
3) Therefore the solar system (and the starry loaves in which it is nestled) is going to be eaten.
Now let’s see what happens when you can’t tell the difference between a system (science, math, language, etc…) describing a thing and the thing itself (the universe).
1) “Apple” is a noun.
2) Nouns are found in the dictionary.
3) Next time you’re feeling hungry, open the dictionary up to Apple and chow down (with apologies to Gwyneth Paltrow).
Now after seeing Matt’s point-by-point rebuttals of your arguments and your refusal (or inability) to understand the strength of his objections, I can’t assume this will have any effect on you (why, for instance, you are troubled by infinite regress but not by the idea of an immaterial god who sits outside of existence but still affects it and – what luck! – requires no cause, is a mystery on par with that of the big bang itself) But hopefully this is a simple explanation of just a few of the flaws in your reasoning for people who read your article and aren’t wearing god-blinders.
The word “code” is used in precisely the same way and with precisely the same meaning in both computer systems and biology.
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/solve.
All philosophers are troubled by infinite regress.
An uncaused casue is not infinite regress. Which is exactly my point. At some point, one is required. Godel’s theorem shows why the universe cannot be its own uncaused cause.
If you want to seriously take part in this discussion, you will need to apprise yourself of the definitions used and the details of the argument.
It’s clear that it isn’t used the same way. The mere fact that human designed codes are self-evidently designed by humans and the genetic code isn’t is enough to show that. That there are resemblances does not make them the same. The fact that you are asserting that they are used in exactly the same way only serves to highlight your circular reasoning.
“I can take quotes out of context and misapply them too.” – Me in a different conversation that had nothing to do with this.
The fact that you would try to take Yockey and use his quotes to argue for intelligent design would be comical if it weren’t insulting. I won’t go into depth as to why it’s wrong here, because, thanks to the power and beauty of the internet, someone else has already done this for me. Here’s a teaser:
“I’m told creationists have started citing this new book of his in defense of their own argument that God must have started life on earth. I’ve not seen this abuse myself, but it wouldn’t surprise me, and at any rate, forewarned is forearmed. If that’s their plan, Yockey throws a bucket of cold water on it.” — To find out why you’ll just have to read the article. Here’s the link – http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2006/11/yockey-on-biogenesis.html
As for infinite regress and the uncaused cause, this is literally the kind of thing they do in intro to philosophy courses. I’m not going to reiterate the entire history of the cosmological argument and its objections, but you’re welcome to read a brief introduction to it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Objections_and_counterarguments
I guess you think that by throwing Goedel in you can make an old dress new, but just like creationists attempt to rebrand themselves as “intelligent design,” it’s lipstick on a pig.
Cute bit at the end there. If you want to seriously insult my intelligence while seeming dignified you’ll have to apprise yourself of more intelligently designed slams.
Mike,
If you want to refute my argument about Godel, you will need to refute it line by line. Snide remarks about “lipstick on a pig” are no substitute for facts and logic.
You will use 100% respectful language in your posts from this point forward or your posts will be deleted.
Yockey on biogenesis: p. 176: “I have no doubt that if the historic process leading to the origin of life were knowable it would be a process of physics and chemistry. Thus the process of the origin of life is possible but unknowable.”
“The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws” Yockey wrote this in his previous book (1992).
“The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico -chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.”
Yockey states that the genetic code must be taken as axiomatic, much as we take Planck and Newton’s axioms, because it cannot be derived from the physics of chemistry.
Pretty sure I’ve already addressed your use of Yockey as a pro-creationist source. I also think I’ve made it clear that I’m not trying to convince you personally of anything. The posts above already refuted your argument days before I even read it, the fact that you don’t see that speaks volumes. You have been refuted and you don’t see it, so you’ll forgive me if I choose not to waste my time any more than I already have.
My commentary was hopefully just illustrative for anyone who didn’t see the plain flaws in logic. I don’t think I’ve said anything here or elsewhere to impugn you, as opposed to your arguments posted (and, as I said, refusal/inability to take any rebuttals seriously).. In terms of your arguments, arguments don’t deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to be attacked. Those that are strong enough will withstand the attack. Yours do not.
You will use 100% non-condescending ultimatums from now on or I won’t post anything else — I probably won’t anyway, I just wanted to let you know in my own special way that I found that to be gratingly paternalistic. Since this is only 93% respectful, you are welcome to delete it.
I quote Yockey precisely because he’s not a creationist. Same with Claude Shannon and others. 99% of the people and papers I quote are non-controversial mainstream peer reviewed research. There is nothing remotely controversial about the fact that the genetic code is in fact a code.
I fully understand that Yockey disagrees with me philosophically. There’s no rule in science, philosophy or life that the person who produces the evidence you use in an argument has to agree with the conclusions you reach about that evidence before you can use it.
Yockey makes the clearest case I’ve ever seen that the laws of physics and chemistry do not explain the origin or nature of the genetic code. Yockey stops right there and goes no further. I continue forward with the simple observation that all codes and coding systems we know the origin of are designed. Therefore we have 100% inference to design in biology.
This is not proof, but it is scientific inference. As such it is just as reliable an observation as the laws of thermodynamics and gravity.
The fact that Yockey doesn’t agree with this is no concern of mine. Yockey tells you there’s no other instance of a naturally occurring code, just the same as I do.
I have taken every legitimate rebuttal seriously, as I have debated this particular topic online for 4 years now. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infidels for an entire history of this debate. You can attempt to argue that DNA is not a code in the same sense that ASCII is a code but that line of argumentation will get you nowhere. The literature is very clear on what the definition of a code is and both examples fit that definition 100%.
Mike, if you can produce one example of a naturally occurring code I’ll write you a check for $10,000 and post your evidence on my website. The specification for doing so is http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/solve/
Until someone can successfully demonstrate a naturally occurring code, the only scientific inference we can make about the origin of the genetic code is that it’s designed. And note that in saying so I have not stepped outside the bounds of science at all. We don’t have to know who the designer is or the exact details of the design process in order for this inference to hold.
1. All types of rapid transit utilities (bikes, cars etc…) are designed by conscious minds and not naturally occurring.
2. Horses are a type of rapid transit utility.
3. Therefore, horses are designed by a conscious mind.
I will give 10 million rubles to the first person to show me a naturally occurring rapid transit utility — keeping in mind that horses don’t count, donkeys, ponies mules, bulls, buffalo neither (Half credit for a midget riding a lasso apso).
Seriously man, good luck with life and everything, but I am beyond done here.
In relation to this comment…I believe Perry’s point was that when you’re discussing codes, there is no example of a horse.
Hy folks. Nice debate. Roy, you stated “What caused God? It’s not a coherent question. By definition God is eternal…uncaused.” Ok, but by who’s definition? What if the nether that harbors the multiverse is what is really eternal and infinite. What if it has always been. No one can prove otherwise and and the proverbial circle cannot be drawn around it. If this were the case then God simply fades into one possible explanation as opposed to “the” explanation. What of time? We experience time on a liner scale but that is a function of the brain (as opposed to Brane…couldnt help it), and no necessarily how time exist in its own dimension. Can you draw a circle around time? Can you prove you can? No, you cant. Time may well extend infinitely in all directions unaffected by gravity, energy, velocity, expansion, or the boundaries of the multiverse. Does this prove that all things are begotten from time?…maybe. Or is time the true God? Either that or time doesnt exist and is an illusion according to the reasoning of this article. Thats been proposed before but not readily accepted by science, much less proven. I think what we have here is a creationist trying to prove his view through a very guided discussion using a single mathematical concept; Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem. To truely understand the implications of that theorem we would all need to be doctorate level mathematicians. A single simple tenet of this theorem was put in even simpler layman’s terms. Then that was used to try to argue a point as absolute. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem does not “prove” the existence of a god (much less a Christian, Buddist, Muslim, Jewish, Egyptian, Greek, African, or any other god invented by mankind). Yes! I whole heartily agree that the possibility of a cosmic conscience exists and that it might be Godly. I believe this because there is no way to completely disprove it either. If time is finite, which we cannot prove, then there is always another circle. Keep in mind. Time was just one of many examples. Replace time with an infinite multiverse, or nether that cant be circled or just consider that the larger circles are also infinite once you break past the multiverse. We have NO way of knowing and many of the variables to this conundrum and God is just one of many…it just happens to be the one you favor.
- Eric M.
My assertions are based on the facts about the universe that are known at this time.
The facts as we know them are: The Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, that it expanded from a single point, and that it has finite mass and energy.
Time and space are inseparably linked. No space = no time. Time itself begins with the big bang. Therefore time is finite. Yes, you can draw a circle around it. It has boundaries.
There may be other dimensions of time and other universes but it is impossible for us to know anything about them.
You are welcome to assert that time and even our own selves are illusory but I don’t know how you’re going to build any kind of epistemology from that foundation. You’re on your own if you want to embrace that view.
If you want to posit an infinite number of universes, I’m going to ask you to provide evidence that they exist because invoking an infinite number of anything violates parsimony.
God is defined as eternal and uncaused in Judeo Christian theology.
Gödel’s theorem directly implies that whatever caused the universe is timeless, boundless and uncaused and not a system.
Which does interestingly match Aquinas’ Via Negativa.
No, Gödel’s theorem does not prove God. It only directly infers the existence of an axiom which the entire universe must rest – something which is not space, not time, not matter, not energy, not a system, conscious and boundless.
I would like to thank you for taking the time to address my comment. Time and space affect each other proportionally but it has not been proven that time is relegated to this space only. We are learning more by leaps and bounds and these are exciting times indeed. Your arguments imho are logical and I respect them. I just think there is more to existence then we have discovered. There are unknown variables that we have yet discovered that need to be plugged into the known concepts of existence. I appreciate your comments. Live well
Eric, I appreciate your comments too and I appreciate being able to disagree respectfully.
Oh yes there is definitely more to existence than we have discovered.
I’d like to address what is commonly described as “god of the gaps” arguments where God is invoked to explain things we can’t explain. I think this is often misconstrued.
People often paint a picture that “God” used to be the default explanation of everything. And now that we have science that is no longer necessary. This is a mis-characterization of history, science and theology.
The Judeo Christian worldview has never in the habit of saying “the wind just blew, gee I guess it must’ve been God.” You just do not find that kind of thinking in Christian theology. Or…. if you find it among simple peasants you certainly don’t find it in Augustine or Aquinas or Origen or Luther or Edwards!
Rather it is asserted that God created the universe, that the universe operates according to specific discoverable laws. And that *sometimes* those laws are superceded by miraculous events; and that the creation of the universe itself is a miraculous event.
And furthermore that if something is a miraculous event, you will probably know it. Because it was distinctly different from what would *normally* happen. (Like resurrection for example. Everyone knows that dead people normally stay dead.)
From that standpoint, science is not one bit closer to “eliminating God” than it was 1000 years ago. Far from it! In fact with each passing discovery the we see that the universe is profoundly fine-tuned and highly ordered. And in the largest sense, the mystery only increases. We know know that there are dozens of universal constants (like gravity and nuclear forces) and if those constants were 0.000001% different the universe as we know it would be impossible.
The mystery will be only that much greater in 20 years than it is now. Not because we know less, but because we know MORE.
The more we know, the more questions are raised.
Which is precisely the point of Gödel’s theorems. Gödel is essentially saying that the more you know, the BIGGER the gap is between what is necessarily true and what you can actually prove. In broad terms, Gödel was telling us the same thing the theologians were already saying 1000 years ago.
Science is not about eliminating God. Science is about discovering how God gets things done. I would submit to you that it’s never been more reasonable to believe in God than it is right now, and there’s nothing in that at all that is weak or abdicates the search for knowledge and truth. Quite the opposite.
“Pulsars are not digital commuication systems.”
Neither is DNA. You just proved to yourself that DNA is not a code by your definition…
Brandon I suggest you consult a dictionary, in which one of the very definitions of “Code” is THE GENETIC CODE. Hubert Yockey’s book should lay to rest any notion that DNA is not a communication system and I invite you to read it before continuing to make this assertion.
Perry,
First please excuse any mistakes in grammer or spelling, English is not my first language, I accept Godels theory but only as a basic premise, it does seem to explain what “is” however as has been mentioned by you one needs to draw a circle around something to describe it and to refference something ouytside of that circle for a rational explaination of what it is. You use the word “God” to explain that which cannot be rationalised that which just is, but by doing so you necessarily draw a circle arround it. I think the answer which has been mentioned in some posts that perhaps the Universe itself is irrational. Take for example your circle (no matter the size or the object within), concentrate on the circle, the realationship of the circumfernce to the radius is (untill proven otherwise) incorporates an infinitly irational figure “Pi” in that it has no recursion. Although we have no problem seeing the circle as a whole? I think perhaps this is confusing to many but as we delve deeper into subatomic world we see more irrationality and duality. Is light a wave or a particle. It is as with the schrodinger’s cat thought experiment the act of measureing causes the breakdown in the paradox. So to return to your original premise that god must exist is your measurement and true for you untill further information is available to breakdown the paradox created by drawing the circle and breaking the Pi paradox that exists within that circle.
Hans,
You can eliminate the need for God if you postulate that the universe is irrational.
I don’t see that this is helpful to anyone at all. Doesn’t that pretty much discard the entire foundation of science? For one thing it prevents any atheist from believing they have some kind of corner on “reason and logic.” Actually that would be an interesting reversal, wouldn’t it?
A religious person says, “I’m religious because I believe in rationality.”
An atheist says, “I’m an atheist because I believe in irrationality.”
However odd it may sound I think it’s remarkably close to the truth. A religious person is likely to tell you that while they do not understand everything that happens in the world, they believe God has a plan and it will all make sense in the end.
An atheist person is likely to tell you they don’t believe in God because of all the wars, bloodshed, disease, gloom and destruction in the world.
One has faith that there is something outside the circle. The other, because of the inconsistency of what they see in world, insists there is not.
As a Buddhist I find this discussion very interesting. A concept called the Mystic Law refers to the unknown and inexplainable workings of the Universe, whether or not it is of a God or not, whether one believes this or not. I believe irregardless of an individuals beliefs, the workings of the universe are beyond our understanding; but this should not stop us from at least trying to explain us and our existence.
I’m not sure why nobody has said this so far. You’ve asked for a “naturally occurring code” multiple times. It seems to me that the answer is quite straightforward, especially as you’ve called it a code multiple times.
DNA
Is it not the product of natural processes? Why is it excluded from being considered a natural code? DNA is encoded and decoded every billions of times every day around the world as a consequence of the laws of physics which dictate the behavior of the molecules that make up DNA. Why is it not a suitable answer to your challenge?
Because nobody knows the ORIGIN of DNA.
There is no known physical process that gets us from non-life to life, from chemicals to self-replicating nanomachines. It’s not a trivial problem, in fact it’s profoundly difficult. The #1 unsolved mystery in all of biology.
I feel like this is assuming time is an actual thing and not a perception. Time only exist because you need it to exist or everything would be all bunched up together.
Time is an actual thing.
“[Paul A. M. Dirac] appears to have shared much the same opinion as the Time Traveller in the 1895 novel The Time Machine by H.G. Wells, whose science-fiction novels he read: ‘There is no difference between Time and any of the three dimensions of space except that our consciousness moves along it.’” -from The Strangest Man, The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Mystic of the Atom by Graham Farmelo
This theorem says indirectly, that whatever we don’t know must be god’s work. But that’s how religion was born. There are certain things our brains cannot comprehend. One simple example: what is infinite?
Or, if somebody believes in the bible I would ask him/her: What happened before the first day was created. What was there than? What/who created god? If nobody/nothing, then what? These things are impossible to comprehend. Our brains are not capable to understand. I simply accept those things and don’t try to explain them with an entity named god. That’s why I don’t believe in the entity named god. And I am very content with that. The main difference between me and religious people is, that I don’t say that in what I believe is the right thing, and try to persuade others to think like me. Religious people believe, that their view is the right one and keep trying to persuade others to believe in what they do.
George,
In college I took a math class called “Matrix Theory” aka Linear Algebra. In Matrix Theory you create and analyze dimensions of space as easily as x’s and y’s in 9th grade algebra. You say, “H is a 27 dimensional space with 16 orthogonal vectors…” just as casually as drawing X and Y coordinates on a piece of paper. Even though it’s impossible to visualize 16 or 27 dimensions.
I can’t say I really enjoyed the homework assignments in that class, it was all very abstract. But the concepts definitely expanded my mind. It made the concepts we’re describing here not so impossible to comprehend.
We live in 3 dimensional space. Time is a 4th dimension, linked to the expansion of space. String theory posits 7 more dimensions in addition to those four.
Those dimensions are just mathematical variables. Just a space that the universe operates within.
This entire article is about the idea that all those dimensions and elements of the universe are necessarily contingent on something. And that something is outside of space, outside of time, outside of all dimensions, and boundless. That something is inherently similar to how theologians have always described God.
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” – Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-proclaimed agnostic.
God may have created millions of other dimensions and other universes that we have no way of peering into. What happened before the first day was created? Only God could tell you. Maybe someday… He will.
Time is real and I believe this can be proved through say the decay of carbon 14, or if I get out of a chair and walk across the room; and relative to my own consciousness, time exists.
Perry;
Thank you for this, I found it very engaging and enlightening. I do think, however, that you are making a logical maneuver that is not valid, yet I think there is an interesting dilemma posed… and perhaps a way out.
Godel’s arguement is essentially one of epistemology: how can we know. If I were to live in my house, and all the doors and windows were eternally blocked shut, I could know nothing of the outside world. Yet, to truly understand, objectively, my predicament would entail stepping outside my house and seeing it from the outside. Yet, this ‘need to know’ does not necessarily say anything objectively about what is outside my house, it only illustrates that fulfilling my need to know would entail stepping outside. In a sense we are like lab rats. Can the lab rat know anything about the observer? There is an epistemological directionality that must be observed – the need to know does not necessarily prove that that need can be fulfilled. While God perhaps can draw a circle around my house, does not mean I can draw a circle around Him. Or does it? Seemingly, something from outside the sphere would need to reach back.
Reading your article jogged my memory that Godel’s argument sounds suspiciously like something else much older. Many are familiar with Anselm’s Ontological Argument, and its over-simplification, but many are not aware that Anselm proceeded that argument in his writings with a clarification that runs something like this:
The comparative goodness of any two things cannot be determined solely by comparing them to each other, invariably a third ‘ideal’ is needed to set a standard of comparison. This not only holds true for any ‘goodness’, but also any goodness one can think of, such as ‘greatness’. This applies when comparing any two commodities one can conceive, regardless how great. Therefore, for thought to be possible, a supreme ‘Ideal’, or ‘Greatness’, higher than any conceivable ideal, must exist or any comparison or description would be stymied. It is this supreme Ideal Greatness we call ‘God’.
People have tried to criticize Anselm’s logic for centuries, yet it somehow bridges a gap that most don’t understand. His logic is often called Modal Logic. While this sounds very much like Godel’s argument, I think Anselm had provided something Godel hasn’t.
If I am still locked in my house, I may wonder what about all these things in my house that don’t have sufficient cause for existing within my house alone. There are no trees in my house, yet my furniture is all made of wood, etc. Something from the outside is indeed reaching back. For Anselm, this ‘thing’ that is reaching back, bridging the gap between my circle and God’s is rationality itself. To Anselm, rationality is not a sufficient cause in itself and provides perhaps a unique case of ‘reaching’ that doesn’t have the same limitations as other things might have.
While it appears that epistemology can only move one way, there does seem to be, according to Anselm, a certain capitulation in the act of knowing itself. Something ‘bounces back’ from the observed to the observer or the act of knowing would be stymied. While much of this might be an illusion or imagination (a movie about Avatars does not prove they actually exist), when applied to ‘knowing’ itself, it can’t be just an illusion or ALL knowing would just an illusion, a phantasm (certain ‘realities’ of the Avatars must exist such as existability or the movie would make no sense). Where Anselm succeeds and Godel fails is in the recognition of evidence needing to traverse the boundary in both directions. To Anselm, rationality itself is this ‘thing’. In Godel’s example, the question is not whether a circle can be drawn around us, it is can a circle be drawn around God.
Steven,
Thanks for your great post. You have actually provided the most understandable explanation of Anselm’s ontological argument that I’ve ever heard. In the manner that it is normally stated, it makes no sense to most people. Your explanation is very good.
To your last point: I maintain that a circle cannot be drawn around God. This is the only way that my argument stands without any internal contradiction. The most important point is: God is not a system. God is not composed of individual parts and God is not divisible and God is not space. So God therefore must be boundless.
My conclusions based on Gödel are remarkably similar to St. Thomas Aquinas’ Via Negativa:
1. God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.[62]
2. God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God’s complete actuality.[63]
3. God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.[64]
4. God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God’s essence and character.[65]
5. God is one, without diversification within God’s self. The unity of God is such that God’s essence is the same as God’s existence. In Aquinas’s words, “in itself the proposition ‘God exists’ is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same.”[66]
You might be interested in knowing that Gödel took Aselm’s argument quite seriously and in fact wrote a proof of it. You can read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel_ontological_proof
I’ve thought about Gödel’s ontological proof but haven’t arrived at any definite conclusions. I think more can be done with it and hopefully I’ll get a chance to address it. (There are some other comments waiting in the queue right now and I’ll get around to those too, soon.)
You have said:
“…Rather it is asserted that God created the universe”
You obviously believe the judeo-christian god created the universe. If you are a Christian, then by definition you believe God has a plan for every individual on this planet. You also believe he made us in his image. My objection concerns our understanding of a being that can conceive of things on a linear time scale, ascribing properties, making plans, creating things…
I haven’t seen anyone call you out on this yet, but if you believe God has a plan, “created” the universe, made us in his image, or just generally has any plan at all for anyone or anything, then you face the problem that any being that can conceive of a linear series of thoughts constituting a “plan” than this being must have a mind, a mental space, containing said concepts, and as such a being it would contradict your #1 assumption about God…
“1. God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.[62]”
He must have composite parts if he is to think in a linear series of events, such as having a plan for the universe. So not only does this contradict your most essential definition of God, but confronts you with the problem of “drawing a circle” around God to explain him and his workings. Infinite regress of explanations ensue…
Why does being able to think plan or intend necessarily require a composition of parts?
“Why does being able to think plan or intend necessarily require a composition of parts?”
By definition to think means:
1 : to form or have in the mind
2 : to have as an intention
Where in nature do we find a system that plans, thinks or intends without a composite of parts (physical parts) or a mind?
Secondly,
“Since all known mental activity has a physical basis, there are probably no disembodied minds. But God is conceived of as a disembodied mind. Therefore, God probably does not exist.”
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/minds.html
Forming a thought or intention requires a temporal series of physically causal events shaping said mind, therefore necessitating by definition composite parts.
You didn’t carefully read the article that this whole thread is about.
When you apply Godel’s theorem to the universe the conclusion is that the axiomatic thing on which the universe depends (ie God) is IMMATERIAL. Read the article and walk through the logic step by step.
This question goes back to the mind/body problem in philosophy, which is at least 3000 years old, and answers it: The mind is not necessarily a body.
I wonder, why doesn’t the logical fact that disembodied minds are improbable give you a sense of the enigma of creation instead of reaffirming a thesis (the Christian God) that has never been sufficiently proved with any kind of evidence? (which is why I assume your using a mysterious and complex logical theorem to argue your case then actual evidence that would be accepted by any good scientist) The disembodied mind case is contradictory to your Godel God conclusion, so why not see it for what it is, a logical mystery maybe best delegated to classroom/intellectual discussion so as to learn how to think properly and in turn focus on real world problems in which science can give a big helping hand.
First, assuming your logic pertaining to Godel’s theorem is correct than I must agree that an axiomatic thing must describe the universe, being boundless and immaterial. But this far from proves the Christian God existence, but instead proves that a formless thing needs to be logically evoked to fulfill the requirements of Godel’s incompleteness theorem in application to the universe and the question of existence and creation.
The implications of this proof are just as mysterious as our understanding of singularities and the matter that gets sucked into them at the center of black holes. Why am I wrong in this assumption about mystery and my accusation that you are logically wrong in the unwarranted conviction about the Christian God, instead of the innumerable amount of other God’s created by man?
Why don’t people assume, in the same way you do in your argument, that an immaterial flying spaghetti monster must be evoked to explain the formal system of a black hole? Because it’s a farcically made up religion, not a millennial old religion based on concepts and rituals from previous doctrinal (and fundamentally irreconcilable from Christianity) religions. There’s evidence in this fact, that Christianity is one of many systems of thought to fulfill many of humanities evolved needs in response to our unique consciousness; hence one of many answer systems, but more importantly to notice is the logical consequence of this fact, that the Christian God does not logically follow as a unique or obvious divine being that best answers philosophic questions about existence, creation and morality.
My main question for you is this; will you admit evoking the Christian God is a premature answer to this immaterial logical-necessity, which is only possible to defend in a theorem that gives many a sense of wonder and mystery, not logical certainty in the Christian God? The fact that a lot of people read your arguments, and see it’s evident sophistication, but nonetheless take it as an interesting anomaly in our constant struggle to discover our place in this universe (multiverse?) shows that the christian God is far from apparent and obvious; most importantly in the lack of evidence for his direct effect upon this world and people’s lives. All historic events, personal testimonials and claimed witnessed miracles have more logical evidence in favor of a naturalistic explanation. More on this later…
Ok, so we agree on an axiom of immaterial cause for the universe stems from the logical consequence of your logic. We also agree (I’m assuming) on a disembodied mind being evidentially and logically a more probabilistically false assumption about the nature of minds than that of a disembodied mind that happens to be that of the Christian God, or souls etc. I’m sorry but you have not answered the mind/body question at all, as you stated in your last response. I have not read one thing in any of your debates that has you logically confirming a fact about the nature of disembodied minds. So this is how I see it. Your taking two mysteries, that are hotly debated topics throughout human history, ones that have inspired millions of great thinkers toward a cornucopia of conclusions (that give much to the world in their mysterious nature and the training it takes to shape ones mind to understand even a small portion of them and the debate as a whole), and fusing them into coherence when none is evident, instead only loose correlation based on the beliefs of one religion amongst many.
You then argue further with a question:
“I invite you to answer your own question:
Does the truth about God – do claims about God – affect anybody?”
Did the claims about Zeus affect anybody? Do the claims of mystics of all types, mediums, masters, gurus, lunatics affect anybody? How about the book “the secret”, it affects people positively, how do you explain this? Natural explanations can, very well actually. Psychology, cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary psychology do extremely well if we wanna get specific.
and:
“Just because they’re (supposed miracles) politically incorrect doesn’t mean they don’t exist…”
Politically incorrect? I think more accurately they can be labeled as “conjectural claims, unsupported by robust evidence”, and subject themselves to naturalistic explanations, which are more wondrous and interesting then the claims themselves (not to be mention vast, as in volumes and hundred of years of theory, research, paradigm shifts and more accuracy of theory and result).
You also said,
“Reason concerning the effects of God on the universe is a field known in academia as theology. I invite you to set aside the pejorative attitude and follow the evidence where it leads.”
I reply with this refutation that methodological naturalism does not rule out explanations that are a priori:
“In utilizing methodological naturalism, science and history do not assume a priori that, as a matter of fact, supernatural causes don’t really exist. There is no conceptual conflict between practicing science or history and believing in the supernatural. However…methodological naturalism would not be as stunningly successful as it has in fact been if metaphysical naturalism were false. Thus the de facto success of methodological naturalism provides strong empirical evidence that metaphysical naturalism is probably true.”
“methodological naturalism does not rule out any explanation a priori. To see why this is, let us recall that methodological naturalism is defined by the way a metaphysical naturalist trying to advance science would act. I think it is relatively clear that such a person would have to be a fallibilist with respect to even his metaphysical beliefs; …he wants to be as sure as he can that his explanations correspond to the way the world really is. Since he does not have all possible data, he cannot be sure that there is not some kind of evidence for the supernatural out there, so he would not want to trap himself in a routine that would ignore even blatant evidence for the supernatural in favor of a less plausible naturalistic hypothesis. The metaphysical naturalist who wishes to fulfill the aims of science cannot rule out the possibility that his metaphysical views may eventually be shown to be wrong – hence, he must be open to some degree to supernatural explanations. However, this degree is likely to be a very slight one, which is what gives methodological naturalism its naturalistic flavor – the methodological naturalist, in acting like a metaphysical naturalist devoted to science, will, while being open to the slight possibility of evidence for the supernatural, consider naturalistic hypotheses on average more parsimonious than supernaturalistic ones, and hence will give them more benefit of doubt. In short, his methodological commitments can tell him to examine all possible naturalistic explanations for a phenomenon first, and can assign higher prima facie probabilities to such explanations on average, but the least plausible naturalistic explanation will tend to have a lower prima facie probability than the most plausible supernaturalistic explanation.”
“Of course, if naturalistic methodology can lead to the confirmation of supernaturalistic hypotheses, it can also lead to the falsification of supernaturalistic hypotheses. In fact, this is what has happened to a number of models offered by scientific creationists…But it is perfectly clear that a large number of hypotheses that appeal to the supernatural make sufficient empirical predictions to be falsified.”
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/ntse.html
You must first refute the logical conclusions of these claims before you assert that theological evidence for God’s effect in the world is stronger than the naturalists evidence.
and this is what you said about nature (the natural world)….
“Indeed, surely if nature tells you anything, it tells you that God can be wild and ferocious. If nature tells you anything about God, it also tells you that God can be soft, tender and beautiful…”
How do you make this monumental leap in logic? Also remember it’s contradictory for God to be both ferocious and tender if he is also to be logical, which you said he was. “It tells you” is off the bat a wrong interpretation of our interaction with the world; “Science tells us” is more accurate, or if you want, “we tell it”, in that there was no written or thought about account of the world before homosapiens arrived on the scene. And if the world was somehow telling us anything how do you make the assumption there is the Christian God behind the curtains telling us? Why not instead try to really follow the evidence (countless pieces of logical, natural evidence) and see that your attempts at marrying God (immaterial and unknowable) to natural effects and stating it as if it was a ipso facto proof of your first premise that God Is, is an extremely premature leap in logic and certainty? The ever cohesive and well understood accumulated evidence, research and pragmatic effects on how we live because of science towers over the accumulated religious evidence for any of it’s wild creation myth/immaterial God claims. This is without question because the logic shows it to be. There is more evidence anyway you look at it for a naturalistic world than that of a supernatural one (one in which a Christian God intervenes on behalf of human, which you admit you believe).
“…do not neglect to distinguish the difference between what God has created and what man has destroyed.”
How about what man has created: science, logic, vaccines, peace treaties, constitutions, medical devices, academy’s of learning, language, art, music, meaning. Each one of those developments can be naturally traced along a historical time-line with varying degrees of cultural transmission between an innumerable amount of connections between individuals. This is the amazing natural world we live in, one where emergent properties exist from apparent chaos. The only way to distinguish between your two choices is by first making God self evident, which he is not, due to the fact that we are debating him, along with millions of other people right now.
“I would invite you to open yourself to understanding God as God really is…”
I would invite you to open yourself to understanding the natural world as the natural world really is.
You say at the top of this web-page,
“The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.”
Isn’t this exactly the leap I’m talking about?
So, the theorem doesn’t prove God exists, only that the natural world needs something outside of it to explain itself…therefore a consistent model of the universe necessitates belief in the Christian God? You say “belief in God”, but can’t this be debated as to what “God” is? If so, then why aren’t you holding your tongue since no one has given us a definitive definition or evidence of God that stands up to all attacks of logic, evidence and reason, the same tools you use to argue your claims?
Here is some new naturalistic/scientific research, so I must ask, how does this square with your conviction that there is more evidence for God’s presence than the opposite? These few are a drop in the bucket compared to all accumulated naturalistic observations and theories.
“There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).”
1. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
“We’re slowly chipping away at the structure of morality,” says Young. “We’re not the first to show that emotions matter for morality, but this is a more precise look at how emotions matter.”
“The finding offers a new piece to the puzzle of how the human brain constructs morality, says Liane Young, a postdoctoral associate in MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences”
2. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100324121008.htm
God is not the Creator, claims academic
3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html
4. http://www.livescience.com/culture/081027-religion-altruism.html
5. http://www.livescience.com/culture/090109-kids-spirituality.html
6. http://www.livescience.com/culture/etc/090512-the-evolution-religion.html
Chris,
You have discomfort with the Christian God and I understand that.
Nonetheless let it be clear that my logic regarding Godel is sound. If the universe is logical then it necessarily follows that the universe is contingent on something outside itself that immaterial and boundless. Such an assumption is axiomatic – not provable but necessary.
This alone firmly establishes the validity of metaphysics.
Naturalism itself presumes to somehow know that there is nothing outside the universe. Godel’s incompleteness theorem gives all possible inference, with the full authority of science, that there is something outside the universe. Therefore we can make a 100% logical conclusion that if science is valid, naturalism is false.
Thus the core of the atheist argument is dismantled by Godel.
Disembodied mind flows from the following syllogism:
1. The pattern in DNA is a code
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.
We can explore five possible conclusions from this:
1) Humans designed DNA
2) Aliens designed DNA
3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
5) DNA was Designed by a metaphysical mind, i.e. God.
I rigorously argue this case at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq and articles linked from this page.
The implications of this are that information is not a product of physics and chemistry but rather that information is always created by top-down causation not bottom-up.
The existence and nature of information itself likewise dismantles the materialistic worldview. Because materialism cannot explain the origin of information.
Information is immaterial, therefore it has an immaterial source, therefore the Original Mind is immaterial.
I do not believe the Christian God is a premature conclusion because if one embraces an essentially Darwinian time line and a secular understanding of the Big Bang (as I do), Genesis 1 matches this time line tit for tat. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/genesis1 for a detailed examination of the text.
You may be unaware that there are many volumes of documented miracles. You can find links to many sources at http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles, near the bottom of the article.
You may also be unaware that the foundation of science, which is an assumption that the universe is governed by fixed discoverable laws, originated in Christian theology. It most certainly did not come from atheism. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq/#christian
Thanks for the quote from Mark Vuletic. I know him, I had extended conversations with him 10 years ago in Oak Park Illinois, we were good friends for awhile. I appreciated the mental exercise and challenge of having those discussions with him. One time we rode to Madison Wisconsin together to see Dan Barker.
Yes I understand that supernatural hypotheses can be falsified, but you seem to be forgetting that my line of argumentation is Godel’s incompleteness theorem. Again, if the universe is logical and mathematical, then a metaphysical world necessarily exists.
A mother bear can be wild and ferocious, and tender. If it is logical for a bear to be that way why is it illogical for God to be that way?
Man did not create science or logic. Man discovered these things.
“Emergent properties exist from apparent chaos.” True enough if you’re talking about snowflakes. Not known to be true if we’re talking about digital code, such as we find in DNA.
You have presented a predictable atheist list of objections but you have not refuted any of my logic.
If you want to talk about correlation between religious belief and social problems in the United States, fair enough. Then let’s also talk about the human rights track record of atheism.
I’ve got a book on my shelf called The Black Book Of Communism. It documents in excruciating detail the genocide of 160 million people under mostly atheist regimes — in the 20th century alone.
“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.“ -Vladimir Lenin
Is it merely a coincidence that more people were murdered by atheist governments in the 20th century, than by all religious wars in all centuries combined? You decide.
“Well, our friend Dirac, too, has a religion, and its guiding principle is this: ‘There is no God and Dirac is his prophet.’” – Wolfgang Pauli, Nobel Prize winner in physics.
“God is a mathematician of very high order.” -Paul Dirac, theoretical physicist who predicted the existence of antimatter
No. It will not. In my world god doesn’t exist.
Hey Perry,
I really admire you for taking the time to respond to every single comment posted here… It is for this reason that I now find myself writing a comment when initially I did not have the intention to do so.
I believe I have a slightly different take on the ‘DNA is designed’ argument from that of earlier commentators. Hopefully this new argument will interest you.
I take it you believe that since all observed codes that we know of (putting aside DNA) are designed by conscious beings, then DNA can be inductively assumed to also have been designed by a conscious being.
Now imagine, if you will (for just a few moments), that there was a world where it were possible that some codes occur without the input of a conscious being, and that they were around on that planet. And imagine, please, that in that world, we could thus divide all codes into two types: those created by conscious beings, and those not created by conscious beings.
Person A believes that there exist both types of codes. Person B believes that only consciously created codes exist.
How would person A, I asked myself, in that particular world, prove to person B that some codes exist without conscious creators? Perhaps he would take a code that has existed long before humankind, show it to person B and say, ‘Behold, this is a code not created by a conscious mind.’
But person B would merely say, ‘You have not proven that this is a code not created by a conscious mind – only that it is a code not created by humans. This only shows that a conscious creator of codes existed before humans, and that it was that creator who made this code. The same can be said of any code not created by humans.’
Of course, person B cannot be proven wrong, even in this world that we are imagining where some codes do exist without conscious creators. The simple fact is that no-one can prove that a certain code has no conscious creator, whether that is actually the case or not.
Hopefully you will realise by now that it is impossible to distinguish, using logic or other means, this imagined world from our own. It may be true that all codes in this world were created by conscious beings. But to say that it MUST be so because we cannot prove it false is a logical fallacy.
( From Wikipedia: The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (“appeal to ignorance”), or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. )
Once again, thank you for your patience and willingness to respond to the comments directed towards your article, and have a nice day.
Sam,
You ask: “How would person A, I asked myself, in that particular world, prove to person B that some codes exist without conscious creators?”
Simple. You demonstrate that you can put chemicals in a tank that don’t have codes and open it up later and find that they do. Then you analyze the process by which it happened.
In other words, simple scientific proof. Empirical evidence.
The scientific community has never provided any kind of evidence that a structure such as DNA, or the information it contains, originates from chemicals. You cannot derive the properties of any code from the laws of physics and chemistry.
We know more about codes in 2010 than we know about most other things in science. Every major university in the world has a Computer Science program. You can take 200 credit hours of classes that discuss the conceptual aspects of codes, objects, databases, storage, transmission and computation.
My argument is not an argument from ignorance. It’s an argument from positive evidence. Based on exhaustive knowledge of the thinking process involved in data storage, processing and retrieval.
It is the materialist / atheist position which is presenting an argumentum ad ignorantiam. I invite you to scour, in detail, the contents of http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infidels – read every single argument people have made against my thesis in the last 4 years. See for yourself if I’m not telling you the straight-up truth. They insist DNA isn’t really a code; they tell me rocks & snowflakes are codes; they tell me I’m not allowed to use inductive reasoning; they tell me that DNA was a happy chemical accident….
Not a single one of these arguments is scientific.
The conclusion that DNA is designed conforms to everything we know about codes, and everything that’s taught in any accredited 4-year Computer Science curriculum.
In Jodie Foster’s film, Contact, she plays a scientist looking for radio signals from space that will prove that intelligent life forms exist far from earth.
Eventually her scientific team receive a signal from the vicinity of a star named Vega. The signal is decoded to show that it consists of a series of prime numbers. The supposition is that prime numbers are universal values that first have to be discovered by an intelligence as least as high a level as ours. That prime numbers don’t just happen randomly in space and are randomly put into a self-evident sequence of separate prime numbers.
And then, of course, transmitted repetitively into space by some sort of transmission device which must be also an intelligently discovered device. The assumption in this storyline (by agnostic/atheist Carl Sagan) is that such a massive device was put into operation for a purpose. There was, by natural assumption, a plan created inside an intelligent mind far away. And the plan seems to be to attract another intelligent species in the universe to hear.
The assumption of the movie is that another intelligence is transmitting a code that must necessarily invoke a concomitant awareness that this is a deliberate communication from one intelligence to another.
But, as exciting as that is, the meaning is further enriched when further analysis reveals beyond the prime number sequences several sets of packaged data with their own code. The code is further discovered to have its own decoder attached (like delivering a DVD along with a DVD player and monitor) that would be ultimately decipherable to mathematicians who have reached our present state of sophistication.
Decoded from that help they discover a video source buried in the signal: Adolf Hitler’s welcoming address at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin which was actually televised with such television transmitters as existed in 1936 and which apparently travelled to the Vegan system.
Then a third set of data was found in the signal; over 60,000 “pages” of what appear to be technical drawings. Later they are decoded to allow for 3 dimensions and this method now reveals a complex machine allowing for one human occupant inside a pod to be dropped into three rapidly spinning rings.
Well, to sum up, we build, the Jodie Foster character travels, she returns, and is treated as a “religious nut” or hoax for making claims she cannot substantiate.
We all of us, ALL of us, agnostic, atheistic, believers in God, quickly, without debate intuitively jump to the same conclusions when we are presented with such a storyline.
Every single person of whatever persuasion or non-persuasion religiously on this earth accepts this premise.
Some “intelligence” MEANS to COMMUNICATE with other intelligences in this story scenario.
We ALL understand that we are begging the impossible to argue that a signal containing a sequence of prime numbers, where one long string of prime numbers has a start and a definable end before another long string of prime numbers is transmitted could just happen to be a random cosmic occurrence.
We understand that we would instantly heap scorn upon ourselves to argue in the face of all these conditions — so WHAT?
And when we discover more data in that signal that also helpfully and INTENTIONALLY gives us algorithms to decode that into a moving video signal that reproduces an old video transmission from our world, we are completely, absolutely convinced that another intelligence is deliberately speaking to US.
And then when we discover a third set of data that has thousands of drawings done in a 3 dimensional model well there is NO argument. This PROVES intelligent life exists in the star system Vega.
Even if the drawings build something that looks ridiculous and seemingly non functional we assume that we just got it wrong. The question of whether another intelligence exists is beyond a doubt, even if they are pranking us.
When you follow every lead that Perry has provided explaining already accepted Communication theory and how it is inextricably demonstrated in the basis of all life as we know it, the DNA system of data storage, transmission, replication, repair — all in not just in 3 dimensions of space but also IN SEQUENCES of TIME, DNA also carrying the code for WHEN something is brought into play at the time that its manufacture or dissolution is optimal for life, then you have to face up to the inevitable.
Some vast Intelligence created a code so complex, yet elegantly compact, and simultaneously from the very first moment of its existence already completely encoded so that its DECODING mechanism is completely as sophisticated, and its transmission of instructions to create tissues and enzymes (themselves staggeringly complex compounds) on a cosmic mathematical scale of deliberate INTENTION by a superhumanly vast intelligence and personal power.
Ladies and Gentlemen, when will you allow yourselves to privately admit that what is ALREADY KNOWN, by itself, is far, far more than an electrical pulse from Vega?
David,
Yes, DNA *is* like a DVD that’s encoded with instructions to build a DVD player. The SETI project is proof that even secular people know coded information is proof of intelligence. BRAVO. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Perry
David,
Yes, DNA *is* like a DVD that’s encoded with instructions to build a DVD player. It also contains error correction checksums based on a Fibonacci sequence. The SETI project is proof that even secular people know coded information is proof of intelligence. BRAVO. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Perry
Perry,
Thank you for your reply. While I’m glad to hear that you would be convinced by empirical evidence, I hope you do realise that an experiment to display the random event of code coming together ‘randomly’ would be impractical – I hear that even computer models would be inadequate to show such an event, though I myself am a little confused as to why.
Still, I suppose there’s not much room for manoeuvre on the ‘empirical proof’ side of the argument, so I will say that I am defeated, when it comes to that, and will merely hope that one day science will once again come to understand something that only religion is be able to explain for now.
I’ll go and read that Infidels thread you gave me the link to now, and perhaps I will return with more questions when I have finished. Thanks for your response!
Sam,
A question I’m surprised people don’t ask more often is: “What if a physical process that creates codes is discovered? What would that mean? Would it destroy your ‘God argument’?”
I think it’s a really great question. And I’m not at all opposed to such a discovery being made.
That discovery would probably hold the key to our scientific understanding of consciousness, which so far is nearly a complete mystery.
It would also be a giant breakthrough, a massive paradigm shift on the same level as the splitting of the atom or Einstein’s theory of relativity. It would be the Nobel prize discovery of the century.
And by the way I don’t think it would destroy my ‘God argument.’ It would only stack the deck even higher at the beginning of the universe. It would raise even greater philosophical questions about how our universe came to be the way that it is. In 2010, science is no closer to “eliminating God” than it was 500 years ago. The ‘gaps’ that science has allegedly closed only grow bigger with each passing year.
Meanwhile I think it’s dishonest of the scientific community to not simply follow the evidence where it leads. To simply admit what is a very obvious conclusion from the facts at hand: That intelligence appears to be behind the genetic code.
We don’t have to agree on what that intelligence is or what it means. But once we acknowledge the exacting design and purposeful nature of DNA all kinds of other doors will open for biological discovery. We need to acknowledge the facts we do have before we can discover new ones.
Hey Perry,
I’m not a biologist, unfortunately, and even if I were, I wouldn’t necessarily know enough to understand the full workings behind this, but since I’d like to continue discussing this, I hope you’ll forgive me for my stabs in the dark and correct me where I contradict current evidence.
I have read through the Infidel’s riddle section of your website, and found it quite interesting. I guess I would have to say that I’m not entirely sure that I understand your argument as to why DNA can’t have ‘evolved’ (I know I can only use the word as an analogy at this stage) from earlier, simpler biological or chemical components… And why those components could not have arisen by chance from other chemicals. After all, I hear the earth had a few hundred million years before any real complex stuff arose.
If that sort of thing can happen, I don’t see how the whole ‘code/information’ bit is relevant. After all, that is only a consequence of what something like DNA consists of, surely?
Again, I hope you’ll forgive me for my tentative guesses – if I had more time, I would look into the subject properly and try to see if I could understand papers on the subject, but I am a student with not long before my exams, so now is perhaps not the best time for that.
(As for the ‘simplier biological/chemical components’ I mentioned, I believe the Iron-Sulphur world theory and the RNA world hypothesis are examples of this, though unconfirmed.)
Any argument for chance fails as soon as you try to apply some statistics to it. I talk about this at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/infinite-chasm/
The possibility of such a thing happening by chance is so vastly improbable that trillions of years and literal a universe of universes would not be even close to enough time. Most people have no comprehension of how bad the statistics actually are. A few hundred million years doesn’t even begin to be enough.
Nowhere in any biological literature will you find any statistical model that shows this is favorable. Frankly the only people who believe this is possible are those who haven’t tried to do the math.
Any proper definition of evolution means variation filtered by natural selection. To have variation you have to have replication and to have replication you have to have a code. Therefore a code is a REQUIREMENT for evolution to even be possible.
So it is not possible that the code “evolved” from a non-code. The term evolution does not even apply.
I have created a specification for discovering a naturally occurring code here: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/solve/
The very basic fallacy and the wrong premise made in this argument is information’s being a product of a conscious entity. You cannot make this presupposition since information may also thought to be an emergent entity, rather than being a designed one. For more about this you can read Daniel Dennet’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2573941/Daniel-C-Dennett-Darwin-s-Dangerous-Idea-Evolution-and-the-Meaning-of-Life
I have this book. Nowhere in this book does Dennett ever demonstrate that information is an emergent entity. For that matter, nowhere in science is there any hard evidence that this is true. “Emergence” in this context is a purely hypothetical construct.
Dennett also asserts that all you need is self replication and evolution will occur automatically. This is also not true and there is no evidence for such an assertion in any of the literature. Evolution is an engineered process as I discuss at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/new-theory-of-evolution/
I’m no scientist, (wish I was because I’d be rolling in the dough!) but I’ve come to the conclusion that DNA is the “Language of the Creator”. Once we become fluent we will be able to talk to God. Or, I look at it this way. If DNA is a language, the the Human Genome or any other creature’s genome is a book.
To be correct, and fair, Darwin actually ‘lifted’ the Theory of Evolution in an act of out-and-out plagiarism, shifting it into the camp of Uniformitarianism. Darwin had no real observational evidence from which to derive the Theory, nor did the Theory appear in the first editions of Origin of the Species.
Darwin was Russel Wallace’s research contact person at home in England. Wallace was sending his overseas research to Darwin for safe keeping. Then Darwin saw Wallace’s Sarawak Law: “Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species.”
Darwin rushed to take credit for the finding (Wallace was overseas and could do nothing about it) leaving out Wallace’s conclusion: “Because man’s physical structure has been developed from an animal form by natural selection, it does not necessarily follow that his mental nature, even though developed pari passu with it, has been developed by the same causes only.”
Then this statement from Wallace: “these speculations are widely held to be far beyond the bounds of science — a superior intelligence has guided the development of man… and for a special purpose, just as man guides the development of many animal and vegetable forms.”
See – ‘A Delicate Arrangement’, Arnold Brackman, (New York) Times Pub.
Hey Perry,
I have read your Infinite Chasm page and I understand where you’re coming from, mostly. I looked around for a while afterwards and came across this page with an article by Ian Musgrave (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html). It’s not too long, and tries to justify all his statement with references to scientific papers.
Looking elsewhere, I found that the actual numbers used in that article were not accurate, since it was mostly to make a point, rather than to be 100% mathematically accurate. I found that the corrections for those numbers (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#notemusgrave) did not apparently negatively affect his conclusions.
You have probably seen that article before, and since it seems to contradict your statements on your Infinite Chasm page, I was wondering if you’d be willing to explain what errors Musgrave has made (aside from the corrections found in the second link)?
He says:
“The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40″
This statement is not being made on the basis of any kind of empirical evidence. He’s playing a shell game. And that’s regardless of whether his math is right or wrong. Here’s why:
Nobody has ever in any circumstances synthesized a self-replicating molecule, ever, anywhere. The only known self replicating machines are living organisms. No one has ever even designed one successfully, let alone seen one assemble by chance.
(I am using Von Neumann’s definition of self replicating machines, not something else like salt crystals etc, which is not really self replication at all. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_replication)
He is only giving you the probability that the chemicals allegedly necessary to make this molecule will arise under some particular circumstances. But he has not given you a probability that they will self assemble in the right structure.
Thus there is no empirical basis whatsoever to the claims he is making. Frankly the entire Origin Of Life field is barely on the fringes of empirical science. This article contributes nothing to it.
Hey Perry,
It’s true that he never precisely mentions how those self-replicators get together from their individual parts. I guess the text reads in such a way to make the reader assume the ingredients can randomly stick together somehow, through chemical processes…
Well, I guess that’s the big question then, isn’t it? It’ll be interesting to see the progress that scientists make as they try to find the answer. It just goes to show how far we still have to go before we can fully understand life.
There is one last thing I’d like to ask you, now. In an earlier comment, you said “once we acknowledge the exacting design and purposeful nature of DNA all kinds of other doors will open for biological discovery. We need to acknowledge the facts we do have before we can discover new ones.”
This confuses me more than anything else, I must confess. Surely the only way to make progress is to keep probing, testing and doubting… What could be gained from accepting that DNA is designed?
If you could explain what you meant by that statement, I’d be very grateful.
The proposition that DNA is NOT designed has led to all kinds of ridiculous theories. The most egregious being the “Junk DNA” hypothesis, which held for about 30 years. Many biologists actually believed, if you can even fathom it, that 97% of our DNA is “junk.” I’m absolutely serious. The term has not even yet been completely abolished – it’s still floating around.
The entire human genome barely fits on a CD ROM. It’s surprising enough that 750MB of data is enough to contain all the plans for a human body. That alone is some sort of miracle. If humans designed DNA it would take 100 CD Roms. Microsoft Windows doesn’t even fit on a single CD ROM and it’s nowhere near as amazing as the human body. The Junk DNA theory would actually imply that all the plans fit on 22 MB. Outrageous.
And: The idea that nature would waste 97% of anything has to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of.
There’s also “vestigial organs” – evolutionary leftovers that serve no purpose. Well, I’m sure there’s *some* truth to the idea but the vast majority of organs declared vestigial were eventually found to have important functions. At one time some people said the human body had 200 vestigial organs. Now the number is hovering at maybe less than 5. That number will continue to get smaller.
And so it goes. When you read atheistic biology literature you constantly find descriptions about how “dumb” the “designs” are. This literature is written by people who for the most part have never designed anything, let alone designed an eye or a lung. As an engineer who designed products that were produced in quantities of hundreds of thousands, I have a particular appreciation for the complex tradeoffs involved in even the simplest devices. When I see living things I see incredibly elegant designs, and choices that involve tremendous subtlety. That subtlety is lost on people who deny purpose in biology.
What happens if you reverse that assumption?
You CANNOT study purpose-FUL things the same way you study purpose-LESS things. In other words you study a thermostat very differently than you study a rock. (There’s a whole book on this distinction called “Perceptual Control Theory” by Powers.) A rock has no goals, no programs, no intentions. It’s just a rock. A thermostat actively seeks to maintain temperature in a room. It has definite goals and it accomplishes those goals in certain ways.
If you study a thermostat and you assume it has no purpose, it’s totally impossible to really understand it.
That is the problem with reductionistic, materialistic biology. It denies teleology (purpose) and it denies design. If there is, however, a design, then materialism will inevitably come to wrong conclusions. If it’s true for a thermostat, it’s doubly true for a Toyota Camry and triply true for biology. The Junk DNA hypothesis is a prime example of the failure of that kind of thinking.
If there’s not a design, it’s still better to assume there is one than to assume there’s not one. Because assuming purpose naturally leads to more detailed discovery and interpretation than assuming accident.
It now turns out that the other 97% of the DNA is where all the INTERESTING stuff is. The 3% only codes for proteins. It specifies the raw materials. The 97% is instructions for how to assemble those materials. Well that part is a lot more interesting. 30 years of assuming it was “junk” prevented a whole bunch of people from ever studying it at all.
30 years of lost scientific process because someone whose ego was out of control proclaimed that something he didn’t understand was junk. Tragic.
By the way, the 97% is also the part that controls evolutionary development. So the people who told us evolution was random and accidental were actually preventing us from finding out how evolution actually happens: That it’s a systematic, engineered process that is goal seeking and incredibly sophisticated. See See James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf for a paper on how the evolutionary process actually works.
If we assume design in DNA then we can make all kinds of hypotheses – predictions – about what biology will discover in the next 3 or 10 or 20 years. I have made a series of such predictions here:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/testable-hypothesis-id-1/ and in subsequent articles 2 3 and 4.
I proved mathematically beyond any question that the logical system of simple addition is complete in and of itself.
Every symbol you define in your system of simple addition has to be taken as axiomatic.
“Every symbol you define in your system of simple addition has to be taken as axiomatic.”
No they don’t. Not even close. The symbols are arbitrary. They’re not bloody axiomatic, they’re just a convenient shorthand. Remember “computably generable?” A computer could prove addition with the FORM of my proof above. The symbols are irrelevant. You could use anything you wanted. The definitions are all INSIDE the system.
What’s more, Gödel’s Theorem is discussed at length by Torkel Franzen and specifically in his book “Gödel’s Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to its Use and Abuse” ISBN 1-56881-238-8
He spent a lot of his life specifically devoting his time to discussing this theorem and common misconceptions applied to it. You would benefit from reading his work.
Arthur,
Yes you are right, your addition system is computable and I stand corrected.
So at this point the attribute in question is: “Non-trivial.”
Gödel’s theorem says:
“For any consistent, non-trivial, formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.”
If your system of addition is both consistent and complete, it is therefore “trivial” according to Gödel’s definition.
Now the original question that brought this up in the first place was: “Does Gödel’s theorem apply to the universe?” I said yes: If the universe is logical [CONSISTENT] then it is necessarily incomplete.
To make my statement completely accurate I have to say that if a theory is consistent and non-trivial then it is necessarily incomplete.
What happens if I substitute the word “system” in place of the word “theory”?
“For any consistent, non-trivial, formal, computably enumerable system that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the system, can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.”
I don’t believe the above statement is any less true than the original version. The physical universe is most definitely capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. I still stand by my statement that the universe is incomplete.
“…any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.”
I hardly think you’ve come anywhere close to proving — or even creating a convincing inference — that the universe is effectively generated. You quoted the Wikipedia article to me, so let me do the same to you: “A formal theory is said to be effectively generated if its set of axioms is a recursively enumerable set. This means that there is a computer program that, in principle, could enumerate all the axioms of the theory without listing any statements that are not axioms. This is equivalent to the ability to enumerate all the theorems of the theory without enumerating any statements that are not theorems”
That’s fine but you said:
“What happens if I substitute the word “system” in place of the word “theory”?”
Well you’ve made a bit of a mess, that’s what happened. A formal theory is necessarily incomplete. That’s what Gödel was referring to. No matter how clever my observations about a system, no matter how far-reaching my insight, my theory will always depend on the system itself which is beyond the theory and always will be. There is always the possibility of creating an axiom which is true but not provable within my theory.
The system itself, in this case, the universe, cannot be proven by a computer program. It does not prove anything. The universe DOES nothing. It just is. It doesn’t derive arithmetic or theories. It doesn’t create formulae. It is the thing outside that we observe and try to explain.
“For any consistent, non-trivial, formal, computably enumerable system that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement t