Quote from Kurt Gödel

[Mikey]

This quote from Kurt Gödel, which is part of the FCM Statement of Principles, seems to originaly be written in German language -- because of the phrase "durchaus einsichtige" in point 7. Does anybody know where I can find the German original? I searched for it but found nothing.

I also have difficulty understanding point 11, "The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition". Does anybody have more insight into this?

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

 

[Keit]

I also have difficulty understanding point 11, "The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition". Does anybody have more insight into this?

Just my take on this, as I currently understand it:

Question: What is similar between a snowflake, a hummingbird, and a girl next door named Kathy, that stands in front of the mirror and fixes her makeup?
Answer: Nothing. And yet, all of them exercise perfection and precision.

:)

 

[ark]

These Godel's statements are taken from "A logical Journey. From Godel to Philosophy", by Hao Wang, MIT Press 1996. The y can also be found in the book's review: PHILOSOPHY IN HAO WANG’S CONVERSATIONS WITH GODEL, Review of HAO WANG, A LOGICAL JOURNEY. FROM GODEL TO PHILOSOPHY.

In the Hao Wang's book he makes these comments before quoting Godel:

"There is among the G6del papers an undated bundle of loose pages written in the Gabelsberger shorthand, with some words in English mixed in. Cheryl Dawson has recently transcribed these pages, which were probably written around 1960. The first page is headed "Philosophical remarks" and contains a list of categories apparently summarizing what Godel takes to be the subject matter of philosophy: "reason, cause, sub- stance, accidents, necessity (conceptual), value-harmony (positiveness), God (= last principle), cognition, force, volition, time, form, content, matter, life, truth, class (= absolute), concept (general and individual), idea, reality, possibility, irreducible, many and one, essence." I believe the word class here means the universal class (of all sets and individuals) and that the identification of this with the absolute harks back to an idea of Cantor's.
On another page, under the rubric "My philosophical viewpoint," Godel lists fourteen items which appear to be an attempt to outline his fundamental philosophical beliefs."

After the list of 14 items Hao Wang adds:

"These are optimistic beliefs and conjectures. They go far beyond "what is possible before all new discoveries and inventions," as Wittgenstein requires of philosophy (1953:126). Unfortunately we know very little of Godel's reasons for holding them. Undoubtedly the centerpiece is his belief that the world is rational. This key belief is an empirical generalization from his interpretation of human experience, but what is known of his arguments for it is hardly convincing. For instance, in the i970s, he said to me things like the following:

9.4.18 Rationalism is connected with Platonism because it is directed to the conceptual aspect rather than toward the real [physical] world. One uses inductive evidence. It is surprising that in some parts of mathematics we get complete developments (such as some work by Gauss in number theory). Mathematics has a form of perfection. In mathematics one attains knowledge once for all. We may expect that the conceptual world is perfect and, furthermore, that objective reality is beautiful, good, and perfect.

9.4.19 The world (including the relationships of people) as we know it is very imperfect. But life as we know it may not be the whole span of the individual. Maybe it will be continued in another world where there is no sickness or death and where all marriages are happy and all work (every career) is enjoyable. There is no evidence against the transmigration of the soul. If there is a soul, it can only unite with a body which fits it, and it can remember its previous life. There are many techniques to train the memory. A very imperfect life of seventy years may be necessary for, and adequately compensated for by, the perfect life afterwards.

 

[ana]

This is how I see it:

What difference higher beings from the rest are not the elements that compose them (analogy) but the order of the elements that compose them (composition).

Everything is consciousness but not all consciousness is organized the same way.

So we are not connected to higher beings because of the organization of consciousness in this level but by consciousness itself wich is the conduit between levels of organization.

Q: (L) Al-Arabi describes unified thought forms as being the 'names of God.' His explication seems to be so identical to things you tell us that I wonder...
A: We are all the names of God. Remember, this is a conduit. This means that both
termination/origination points are of equal value, importance.
Q: (L) What do you mean? Does this mean that we are a part of this?
A: Yes. Don't deify us. And, be sure all others with which you communicate understand this
too!

 

[Gawan]

These Godel's statements are taken from "A logical Journey. From Godel to Philosophy", by Hao Wang, MIT Press 1996. The y can also be found in the book's review: PHILOSOPHY IN HAO WANG’S CONVERSATIONS WITH GODEL, Review of HAO WANG, A LOGICAL JOURNEY. FROM GODEL TO PHILOSOPHY.

Thanks for that Ark, that would have been my question so far, from where it is quoted.

And it looks like (amazon, google ...) if there is no German translation of this work itself available. :(

 

[Leo40]

Forum members interested in Kurt Gödel might want to look also at:
"Reflections on Kurt Gödel" by Hao Wang, MIT Press, 1987.

 

[Buddy]

Hi Data. I know you didn't ask about "durchaus einsichtig" specifically, and you may already know this, but just in case you or anyone finds this interesting, I thought I would mention something I discovered about it.

Aside from the many internet references to the phrase (durchaus einsichtig) giving a meaning something like this: 'reasonable', 'obvious', 'insightful' and 'understandable', there is one use of the phrase that is a bit different.

Here it is in context:
-----------------
Im Deutsch:
Häufig ist das durchaus einsichtige Argument zu hören, daß die Abgeordneten des Vereinigten Königreichs sich enthalten oder aber sich an dieser Abstimmung nicht beteiligen sollten, da das Vereinigte Königreich durch unser opt-out nicht zu den ersten Mitgliedern der WWU zählen wird.

In English:
There is, however, a respectable argument that, because there is no question of the UK becoming one of the initial members of EMU under our opt-out, UK MEPs should either abstain or stand aside from this vote.

So, durchaus einsichtig also = quite respectable/quite understandable as in a "quite respectable and understandable" argument.

So, in the Primitive Concepts, Number 7 could also read:
The development of human thought since the Renaissance is[has become] "quite respectable and understandable".

And considering that "human thought" is the subject, and the Renaissance period has also been referred to as "the age of reason", one can infer that before the Renaissance, "reason" must have been pretty messed up; and indeed, it was, in my view.

But you may already know that, so fwiw to anyone else.

re:
--------------------------------
_http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.linguee.com/translation/german/deliver%2Bmore.html&ei=-R7oTNzaMcGAlAeioIz4Cw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCUQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522old%2BGerman%2522%2B%2522durchaus%2Beinsichtig%2522%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Ds%26prmd%3Div
_http://www.linguee.com/translation/german/deliver+more.html
-------------------------------
-------------------------------

I also have difficulty understanding point 11, "The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition". Does anybody have more insight into this?

Well, in the sense that the "internal I" is a mental analog model of the external self, you would be talking about self-similarity but on a different level of abstraction, OSIT.

Another thing to look out for regarding analog problems in translations is unintended opposites:

Example:

What do the words “dust,” “trim,” and “sanction” have in common?

Answer: Each word has opposing meanings. E.g.,

1) Dust:
* You add material when you dust crops.
* You remove material when you dust furniture.

2) Trim:
* Remove the edges from, and cut down to, the desired size; "pare one's fingernails"; "trim the photograph"; "trim lumber"
* Decorate, as with ornaments; "trim the Christmas tree"; "trim a shop window"

3) Sanction:
* Criminal sanctions can take the form of serious punishment, such as capital punishment, prison time, or severe fines. ...
* Give authority or permission to

 

[Mikey]

Re: Quote from Kurt Gödel

Thank your for your replies. Phrase 11 is now much clearer to me.

I still don't know if the book "A logical journey. From Gödel to Philosophy" contains the German original, but I think the translation from English back to German is good enough. But thank you Ark, now we could put the reference to this book review into the Statement of Principles.

 

[Gawan]

Thank your for your replies. Phrase 11 is now much clearer to me.

I still don't know if the book "A logical journey. From Gödel to Philosophy" contains the German original, but I think the translation from English back to German is good enough. But thank you Ark, now we could put the reference to this book review into the Statement of Principles.

I could try to get it via a library network, but this may take some weeks and still leaves it open if there is a German translation in it, cause Gödel lived a very long time (till he died) in Princeton and this specific work/sentences are from his estate, or so it seems.

What I found out so far, that "the world is rational" is translated with: "die Welt ist vernünftig", both "rational" and "vernünftig" are possible, but somehow "vernünftig" is used.

Here is, I think a good article about Gödel, unfortunately only in German:

"Die Welt ist vernünftig“, lautet der erste Satz seines philosophischen Credos, das man in seinem Nachlass entdeckte. Und darum musste es für jedes noch so zufällig scheinende Ereignis eine streng logische Erklärung geben, und Gödel fand stets eine, mochte sie auch noch so aberwitzig klingen.

Translation:
"The world is rational", this has been the first sentence of his philosophical credo, that has been found in his estate. And this is the reason, that for every event, no matter how accidentally it seemed, that there must be a logical explanation for it. And Gödel always found an explanation, also when it sometimes sounded crazy.

_http://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/das-genie-und-der-wahnsinn/1139308.html


And what I really like, that Gödel was known as: "Mr. Why" :)


Here is another article:

_http://tcpa.uni-sofia.bg/conf/GAS/files/Ivan_Todorov.pdf

1. “DerHerrWarum” enters “der Wiener Kreis”
Die Welt ist vernünftig. (The world is rational.) Kurt Gödel (undated, [D97], p. 1)

[...]

[D97] John W. Dawson, Jr., Logical Dilemmas. The Life and Work of Kurt Gödel, A.K. Peters, Wellesley, MA 1997.

 

[Gawan]

Sorry this has been a double post.

 

[Laura]

I also have difficulty understanding point 11, "The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition". Does anybody have more insight into this?

What that makes me think of is this:

Einstein did, at one point, propose to consider the hyperdimensional world as “real.” In 1938, with P. Bergmann, he wrote a paper entitled On a Generalization of Kaluza’s Theory of Electricity:

So far, two fairly simple and natural attempts to connect gravitation and electricity by a unitary field theory have been made, one by Weyl, the other by Kaluza. Furthermore, there have been some attempts to represent Kaluza’s theory formally so as to avoid the introduction of the fifth dimension of the physical continuum. The theory presented here differs from Kaluza’s in one essential point; we ascribe physical reality to the fifth dimension whereas in Kaluza’s theory this fifth dimension was introduced only in order to obtain new components of the metric tensor representing the electromagnetic field.

We believe that Einstein was following a path that was later to prove very fruitful. Einstein, however, was somewhat nervous about this idea, but he followed it anyway, writing in his paper:

If Kaluza’s attempt is a real step forward, then it is because of the introduction of the five dimensional space. There have been many attempts to retain the essential formal results obtained by Kaluza without sacrificing the four-dimensional character of the physical space. This shows distinctly how vividly our physical intuition resists the introduction of the fifth dimension. But by considering and comparing all these attempts one must come to the conclusion that all these endeavors did not improve the situation. It seems impossible to formulate Kaluza’s idea in a simple way without introducing the fifth dimension.

We have, therefore, to take the fifth dimension seriously although we are not encouraged to do so by plain experience. If, therefore, the space structure seems to force acceptance of the five dimensional space theory upon us we must ask whether it is sensible to assume the rigorous reducibility to four dimensional space. We believe that the answer should be “no,” provided that it is possible to understand, in another way, the quasi-four dimensional character of the physical space by taking as a basis the five dimensional continuum and to simplify hereby the basic geometrical assumptions.[…] The most essential point of our theory is the replacing of …rigorous cylindricity by the assumption that space is closed (or periodic).[…] Kaluza’s five dimensional theory of the physical space provides a unitary representation of gravitation and electromagnetism. […] It is much more satisfactory to introduce the fifth dimension not only formally, but to assign to it some physical meaning.

Which then leads to this:

The phenomenon that these ideas speak to more directly is that of hyperdimensional realities wherein mental energies or consciousness energies are amplified and can be interactive with the environment: technology that suggests not only power for transport that is partly physical, partly “ethereal;” communication that is also partly physical and partly ethereal, as well as powers of “manifestation” that might seem impossible to us in our present state of technology. All of these properties do belong to hyperdimensional existence, and such a state of being has been reported for millennia as being the “realm of the gods,” including Dragons and Serpents, and critters of all sorts.

If we can describe such realms mathematically and give them a physical reality, as Dirac suggests, then we might also consider the hypothesis that they may be inhabited. Could our “Gods” be inhabitants of this realm?
As many physicists will tell you, all that really exists are “waveforms” and we are waveforms of reality, and our consciousness is something that “reads waves.” We give form and structure to the waves we “read” according to some agreed upon convention.

And so, certain denizens of hyperdimensional space are “read” as more or less “reptilian“ because that is the “essence” of their being, the frequency of their “wave form.” We call them the Overlords of Entropy. They are not necessarily physical as we understand the term, nor are they necessarily “alien” as we understand that term either. We suspect that the perceptions of these levels of reality and their “consciousness units” are what is behind many religious conceptions and mythological representations of “gods and goddesses” and creatures of all sorts.

 

[John G]

I also have difficulty understanding point 11, "The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition". Does anybody have more insight into this?

What that makes me think of is this:

...we ascribe physical reality to the fifth dimension... We give form and structure to the waves we “read” according to some agreed upon convention...

Yeah I would think composition would be in the real physics/math sense where we would be quite different than the "higher beings". Analogy would be in the philosophical sense that includes what affects us unknowingly as well as knowingly and where we are going. We could certainly be connected to higher beings in this philosophical sense.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Re: Quote from Kurt Gödel

I also have difficulty understanding point 11, "The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition". Does anybody have more insight into this?

What that makes me think of is this:

Einstein did, at one point, propose to consider the hyperdimensional world as “real.” In 1938, with P. Bergmann, he wrote a paper entitled On a Generalization of Kaluza’s Theory of Electricity:

So far, two fairly simple and natural attempts to connect gravitation and electricity by a unitary field theory have been made, one by Weyl, the other by Kaluza. Furthermore, there have been some attempts to represent Kaluza’s theory formally so as to avoid the introduction of the fifth dimension of the physical continuum. The theory presented here differs from Kaluza’s in one essential point; we ascribe physical reality to the fifth dimension whereas in Kaluza’s theory this fifth dimension was introduced only in order to obtain new components of the metric tensor representing the electromagnetic field.

We believe that Einstein was following a path that was later to prove very fruitful. Einstein, however, was somewhat nervous about this idea, but he followed it anyway, writing in his paper:

If Kaluza’s attempt is a real step forward, then it is because of the introduction of the five dimensional space. There have been many attempts to retain the essential formal results obtained by Kaluza without sacrificing the four-dimensional character of the physical space. This shows distinctly how vividly our physical intuition resists the introduction of the fifth dimension. But by considering and comparing all these attempts one must come to the conclusion that all these endeavors did not improve the situation. It seems impossible to formulate Kaluza’s idea in a simple way without introducing the fifth dimension.

We have, therefore, to take the fifth dimension seriously although we are not encouraged to do so by plain experience. If, therefore, the space structure seems to force acceptance of the five dimensional space theory upon us we must ask whether it is sensible to assume the rigorous reducibility to four dimensional space. We believe that the answer should be “no,” provided that it is possible to understand, in another way, the quasi-four dimensional character of the physical space by taking as a basis the five dimensional continuum and to simplify hereby the basic geometrical assumptions.[…] The most essential point of our theory is the replacing of …rigorous cylindricity by the assumption that space is closed (or periodic).[…] Kaluza’s five dimensional theory of the physical space provides a unitary representation of gravitation and electromagnetism. […] It is much more satisfactory to introduce the fifth dimension not only formally, but to assign to it some physical meaning.

Which then leads to this:

The phenomenon that these ideas speak to more directly is that of hyperdimensional realities wherein mental energies or consciousness energies are amplified and can be interactive with the environment: technology that suggests not only power for transport that is partly physical, partly “ethereal;” communication that is also partly physical and partly ethereal, as well as powers of “manifestation” that might seem impossible to us in our present state of technology. All of these properties do belong to hyperdimensional existence, and such a state of being has been reported for millennia as being the “realm of the gods,” including Dragons and Serpents, and critters of all sorts.

If we can describe such realms mathematically and give them a physical reality, as Dirac suggests, then we might also consider the hypothesis that they may be inhabited. Could our “Gods” be inhabitants of this realm?
As many physicists will tell you, all that really exists are “waveforms” and we are waveforms of reality, and our consciousness is something that “reads waves.” We give form and structure to the waves we “read” according to some agreed upon convention.

And so, certain denizens of hyperdimensional space are “read” as more or less “reptilian“ because that is the “essence” of their being, the frequency of their “wave form.” We call them the Overlords of Entropy. They are not necessarily physical as we understand the term, nor are they necessarily “alien” as we understand that term either. We suspect that the perceptions of these levels of reality and their “consciousness units” are what is behind many religious conceptions and mythological representations of “gods and goddesses” and creatures of all sorts.

Could this be a way of seeing this analogically? Take two notes on the piano, an octave apart. They are "connected" by analogy; they sound the same and are resonant with each other, but they are of different "composition" (i.e. frequency). Its similar with densities; higher beings are "connected" with lower beings by resonance of vibrations, NOT by the composition of their parts. Lizzies "resonate" with the frequency of lizards, and are similar by analogy. But they are not simply higher dimensional aspects of their composition (in the way that a cube is related to square cross sections of which it is composed).

 

[go2]

I woke with the thought that the "Overlords of Entropy" are connected to others by analogy; therefore, the "Overlords of Entropy" are allegorical beings whose energy and form exist in the interwoven and overlapping electromagnetic fields of the human brain.

The fifth dimension actualizes existence in the human mind. I first thought the fifth dimension would contain the four dimensions of time and space, however I now wonder if the fifth dimension has "physical reality" only in the EM fields of the human mind.

The "physical reality" comes from Einstein`s famous E=MC2, where the EM wave must have an infinitesimal mass. Therefore, the fifth dimension is physically contained within the four dimensions, but octavically a higher vibration of the wave manifestation.

If we can describe such realms mathematically and give them a physical reality, as Dirac suggests, then we might also consider the hypothesis that they may be inhabited. Could our “Gods” be inhabitants of this realm?
As many physicists will tell you, all that really exists are “waveforms” and we are waveforms of reality, and our consciousness is something that “reads waves.” We give form and structure to the waves we “read” according to some agreed upon convention.

Does this quote imply that we create our own reality? In response to Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle at the heart of quantum theory; Einstein is famously quoted as saying, "God does not play dice with the universe". Is the uncertainty implied by quantum theory, the conundrum that troubled Einstein, and led to his hypothesizing a physical reality for the fifth dimension?

The phenomenon that these ideas speak to more directly is that of hyperdimensional realities wherein mental energies or consciousness energies are amplified and can be interactive with the environment: technology that suggests not only power for transport that is partly physical, partly “ethereal;” communication that is also partly physical and partly ethereal, as well as powers of “manifestation” that might seem impossible to us in our present state of technology. All of these properties do belong to hyperdimensional existence, and such a state of being has been reported for millennia as being the “realm of the gods,” including Dragons and Serpents, and critters of all sorts.

It is my impression that life amplifies, interacts, transports, communicates, etc. physical and ethereal energies. The human being can be thought of as a technology created in the image of God for the purpose of manifesting and actualizing hyperdimensional realities.

I offer these thoughts after struggling to understand the implications of this thread. Do these thoughts coincide or contradict with other readers understanding?

 

[ROEL]

"11.The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition."

'Analogy' as I read it in the statement could refer to vibrational quality, and if so, it can mean that the connection is made when there is a shared vibrational range (partly, at least) between higher and other beings.

'Composition' as I read it would refer to the particular combination of existing materials that conform a higher being as opposed to the different combination of these materials that are 'used' to conform the other beings, going from dense matter to more subtle, ethereal manifestations (i.e. combinations).

When I say 'existing materials', I mean all that the universe provides that is combined in innumerable ways to produce what exists, from the most dense to the most subtle, regardless of the dimension where it manifests. Which is why I use tye word 'all'.

Well, maybe I managed to convey my interprertation, who knows...