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

51–60 of 184 posts

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

#51

Post by imiric »

> His rationale for belief in an afterlife is this:

> If the world is rationally organised and has meaning, then it must be the case. For what sort of a meaning would it have to bring about a being (the human being) with such a wide field of possibilities for personal development and relationships to others, only then to let him achieve not even 1/1,000th of it?

Far from my petty mind to challenge a great thinker like Gödel, but I don't follow this line of thinking.

First of all, the world being rational is a property humans ascribe to it. On an atomic level matter follows specific rules, yes, and we extrapolate a certain order from this on a higher level. But I don't see how any of it can be defined as rational, or having any sort of deeper meaning.

Even if we assume that to be true, why would that be a reason to believe that humans are expected to deliver some sort of "meaning" to the universe? And why would that entitle us to immortality? This all sounds deeply egotistical.

> Only the human being can come into a better existence through learning, that is, give his life more meaning.

I wonder what Gödel would think about modern AI. As we have found, learning is not a special ability of humans, and can, in fact, be simulated. That on its own doesn't grant eternal life, though AI certainly has more chances of survival, not being bound by our fleshy meat sacks and all.

I don't know. I'm not well read in philosophy, and my only exposure to it was during a semester at college, but this particular philosophy reads like someone trying to bring peace about mortality to their elder mother, and not like a fully fleshed out line of thinking. Which is fine. Life is indeed strange and confusing, and we should find peace in whatever way we can, but maybe there's a reason why these thoughts were never made public.

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

#52

Post by mistermann »

anonzzzies wrote: post #47
mingus88 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> But my initial take on Godel’s belief here is that even if he is correct, He was/is correct about many things, but not about the afterlife. It's just because some people are so lucky to see the face of god by deep and hard mental studies, they believe there is such a thing. And if you have been told all your life that is reality and you 'saw' it, why question it?

> He was/is correct about many things, but not about the afterlife.

What method did you use to objectively determine whether there is an afterlife, in a manner that is impossible to be incorrect?

> And if you have been told all your life that is reality and you 'saw' it, why question it?

You arrived at this extremely popular yet epistemically unsound "fact" entirely independently did you?

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

#53

Post by kevindamm »

imiric wrote: post #51

> His rationale for belief in an afterlife is this: > If the world is rationally organised and has meaning, then it must be the case. For what sort of a meaning would it have to bring about a being (the human being) with such a wide field of possibilities for personal development and relationships to others, only then to let him achieve not even 1/1,000th of it? Far from my petty mind to challenge a great thinker lik…

> I wonder what Gödel would think about modern AI. As we have found, learning is not a special ability of humans, and can, in fact, be simulated. That on its own doesn't grant eternal life, though AI certainly has more chances of survival, not being bound by our fleshy meat sacks and all.

Instead bound by substrate and power grid that are both inefficient and minimally redundant. I'd wager more on the meat sacks.

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

#54

Post by nescioquid »

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.

> ...but why do you get to determine what is “utter nonsense”?

With respect, I've always found the "why do you get to decide" retort unfair. First, it actually isn't a counter-argument: it's an appeal to shame. Secondly, everyone is entitled to come to their own conclusions and form their own judgements.

I do think the "utter nonsense" was a bald statement in that there wasn't much of a warrant given for it, but people tend to do that when something seems self-evident. Better to just ask for the warrant in that case.

BTW, why in the world did someone flag that comment?

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

#55

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

pmarreck wrote: post #2

Hopefully as an FYI that is free of too much skeptical criticism (I mean... I actually get it, but I just don't want to deal with negativity right now), there's actually a rapidly growing number of NDE accounts on YouTube right now. I am putting together a playlist of the most compelling ones: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvnDbwjRqIOkgR1eUMfpn... Some of these are from well-educated people like doctors, for…

I just watched this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_IbXrBOnME.

What he described actually sounds a lot like lucid dreaming. Even complete with waking up. I am still interested in watching a few more of these but I'm getting the feeling that I'll be thinking that a lot.

(There also appears to be an unrelated video in the playlist, FYI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bzQYKm3xTA.)

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

#56

Post by mistermann »

stvltvs wrote: post #27
pmarreck wrote: post #2

Hopefully as an FYI that is free of too much skeptical criticism (I mean... I actually get it, but I just don't want to deal with negativity right now), there's actually a rapidly growing number of NDE accounts on YouTube right now. I am putting together a playlist of the most compelling ones: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvnDbwjRqIOkgR1eUMfpn... Some of these are from well-educated people like doctors, for…

Skepticism is indispensable precisely because smart people believe dumb ideas all the time. It's our only defense against flimflam and bad reasoning.

Is this to say that you possess necessarily accurate knowledge about the objectively true status on an afterlife, or is this more so just standard culture war rhetoric?

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

#57

Post by austinjp »

krapp wrote: post #45
mingus88 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I think that at the end of the day, every rationalization of an afterlife is personal - people believe humans get an afterlife so they can assure themselves of life after death. Of course it's entirely possible for the universe to have been designed and still operate under purely naturalistic rules, without any hint of supernatural elements, but what would be the point of believing that?

Oh, now that's a nice twist, if I follow you. A universe with a creator, but no afterlife. Or another possibility: a universe without a creator, but with an afterlife.

Huh. Don't think I've considered those options before. I'm sure some religions have proposed these possibilities already, though?

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

#58

Post by freejazz »

imiric wrote: post #51

> His rationale for belief in an afterlife is this: > If the world is rationally organised and has meaning, then it must be the case. For what sort of a meaning would it have to bring about a being (the human being) with such a wide field of possibilities for personal development and relationships to others, only then to let him achieve not even 1/1,000th of it? Far from my petty mind to challenge a great thinker lik…

>First of all, the world being rational is a property humans ascribe to it. On an atomic level matter follows specific rules, yes, and we extrapolate a certain order from this on a higher level. But I don't see how any of it can be defined as rational, or having any sort of deeper meaning.

You might not be read in philosophy, but surely you understand the word "if"

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

#59

Post by zvmaz »

ffhhj wrote: post #30
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…

> Is there a reason we should care about his belief regarding this? The scientific method proposes begining with conjectures, have Gödel's afterlife hypothesis been disproved? Could it be disproved? Can it trigger thoughts in an intelligence? Are those thoughts valued?

You can posit the existence all sorts of entities as "hypotheses that have not been disproved". See for instance Russell's teapot [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

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

#60

Post by mistermann »

nescioquid wrote: post #54
Xcelerate wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> ...but why do you get to determine what is “utter nonsense”? With respect, I've always found the "why do you get to decide" retort unfair. First, it actually isn't a counter-argument: it's an appeal to shame. Secondly, everyone is entitled to come to their own conclusions and form their own judgements. I do think the "utter nonsense" was a bald statement in that there wasn't much of a warrant given for it, but peop…

> With respect, I've always found the "why do you get to decide" retort unfair. First, it actually isn't a counter-argument: it's an appeal to shame. Secondly, everyone is entitled to come to their own conclusions and form their own judgements.

It is possible to explicitly state if one's statement is intended as an expression of fact or opinion, although having the presence of mind to remember that the distinction exists (wrt to one's own "reality") is typically required.

> I do think the "utter nonsense" was a bald statement in that there wasn't much of a warrant given for it, but people tend to do that when something seems self-evident.

Is the irony of technically delusional atheists criticizing theists for delusions not a bit too rich for your tastes though?

I am fascinated by what religion and religious ideas do to the minds of both believers and non-believers, it makes it very hard for me to believe that there isn't something supernatural ("beyond scientific understanding") going on here.

Post reply on HN