Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kurt Gödel, his mother and the argument for life after death

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 184 posts

Re: Kurt Gödel, his mother and the argument for life after death

#31

Post by bongodongobob »

Xcelerate wrote: post #10
IshKebab wrote: post #5

[flagged]

> I don't think it's news that clever people can believe utter nonsense Not that I necessarily agree with Godel’s specific views on the topic, but why do you get to determine what is “utter nonsense”? There’s clearly no consensus on the matter nor has there been for most of human existence. We’re not talking about some fringe belief like “brushing teeth is bad” that Feynman held.

Because the burden of proof is on the person claiming that pink elephants exist. I don't have to prove it doesn't, you have to prove it does.

Re: Kurt Gödel, his mother and the argument for life after death

#32

Post by javajosh »

I rather like to believe that the universe is infinite[1], and that the laws of physics change imperceptibly across long distances, meaning that our observable part has properties that helped life, and intelligent life, evolve[2]. There does seem to be a compelling negentropic "urge" present at almost every level of physical reality, that complexity accretes over time in a manner that almost seems designed[3]. This idea preserves both the notion that the universe is rational in some sense, AND that we occupy no special place in it. Indeed, one could see the biosphere of earth, and humans, as merely data pointing to a particular bundle of physical constants in this local region.

I do not believe there is a heaven unless we build one.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy

Re: Kurt Gödel, his mother and the argument for life after death

#34

Post by layer8 »

> The idea that everything in the world has meaning is, by the way, the exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause on which the whole of science is based.’ Gödel – just like Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, whom he idolised – believed that everything in the world has a reason for its being so and not otherwise.

This is the core mistake, I believe, to assume that causation implies meaning, instead of causation just being a logical correlation, and meaning being a construction of the human mind.

It’s interesting, though, that Gödel took his incompleteness theorems as an indication that materialism (or naturalism) can’t be the truth, while still thinking that the world is rational.

Re: Kurt Gödel, his mother and the argument for life after death

#35

Post by nprateem »

nonameiguess wrote: post #14

Is there a reason we should care about his belief regarding this? Putting aside that smart people in one realm are often quite irrational outside of their expertise, e.g. Isaac Newton being super dedicated to alchemy, Jack Parsons at JPL believing he could summon demons, there is also a quite obvious limitation to this line of evidence. I have very good reason to believe I'm going to survive the next five minutes. Th…

What's your point exactly? Oh I see, should we care. I don't. You can reason it either way.

As for alchemy it's a meditative practice that makes sense if you understand it. Where the external alchemists went wrong was no one told them what the symbols meant so they thought it was a physical transformation of base metals rather than of consciousness, which is what it is. In fact, the alchemists aimed for direct spiritual knowledge, not faith. From that perspective it's perfectly rational.

Re: Kurt Gödel, his mother and the argument for life after death

#36

Post by fsckboy »

nkjnlknlk wrote: post #22
fsckboy wrote: post #4

TLDR Godel believed we lived in a rational world. "Precisely in virtue of the fact that our lives consist in unfulfilled or spoiled potential makes him confident that this lifetime is but a staging ground for things to come. But, again, that is only if the world is rationally structured."

> I like Jordan Peterson's evolutionary take on these philosophical questions Why when actual evolutionary biologists disagree with Peterson on most of his "takes"?

Peterson's a psychologist, an important field that many evolutionary biologists and HNers sadly don't quite understand, though they do very good work otherwise.

Re: Kurt Gödel, his mother and the argument for life after death

#37

Post by networkchad »

noncoml wrote: post #20

If there is afterlife and I die today will I be in the mental state I was just before I died? If so is my grandmother that had Alzheimer's destined to experience the eternity in that horrible state?

By my understanding the answer according to Christian belief is no. Your body is restored to its fully capability when you enter the kingdom of heaven.

Re: Kurt Gödel, his mother and the argument for life after death

#38

Post by mingus88 »

anonzzzies wrote: post #15

Math people seem to have this more than other engineering/science etc ; math, and this is actual bloody Godel, seems so perfect and beautiful that is has to have a creator. Everything else is incredibly sloppy (including most software).

Yeah there is a nice crossover also in religion, where some sects have agreed that theories like the Big Bang are not incompatible with a creator.

But my initial take on Godel’s belief here is that even if he is correct, and the order of the universe demands that there is more to existence than this, why do Humans get the afterlife?

Parameciums don’t have the inherent consciousness or great individual potential, so there is a cutoff where beings would “qualify” for an afterlife to continue developing their potential, as he posits it.

Are lesser apes bound for the afterlife? Are dolphins?

Or are Humans just the first to get here, and we will be supplanted by an even more rationally destined species to be blessed with the afterlife?

Re: Kurt Gödel, his mother and the argument for life after death

#39

Post by 7thaccount »

nprateem wrote: post #35
nonameiguess wrote: post #14

Is there a reason we should care about his belief regarding this? Putting aside that smart people in one realm are often quite irrational outside of their expertise, e.g. Isaac Newton being super dedicated to alchemy, Jack Parsons at JPL believing he could summon demons, there is also a quite obvious limitation to this line of evidence. I have very good reason to believe I'm going to survive the next five minutes. Th…

What's your point exactly? Oh I see, should we care. I don't. You can reason it either way. As for alchemy it's a meditative practice that makes sense if you understand it. Where the external alchemists went wrong was no one told them what the symbols meant so they thought it was a physical transformation of base metals rather than of consciousness, which is what it is. In fact, the alchemists aimed for direct spirit…

What does your second paragraph even mean? I don't mean to come across as disrespectful btw. I just honestly don't understand what you're trying to convey.

Re: Kurt Gödel, his mother and the argument for life after death

#40

Post by some_furry »

fsckboy wrote: post #36
nkjnlknlk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I like Jordan Peterson's evolutionary take on these philosophical questions Why when actual evolutionary biologists disagree with Peterson on most of his "takes"?

Peterson's a psychologist, an important field that many evolutionary biologists and HNers sadly don't quite understand, though they do very good work otherwise.

> Just for the record since people can't see it, I had tons of upvotes before I added the part about Peterson. All the "logicians" here suddenly were not able to like (an emotion) the part of my comment that they had previously liked :)

Please don't turn an unrelated topic into a flamewar about Jorpson

Post reply on HN