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

Gödel's Loophole

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 134 posts

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#51

Post by matthewfelgate »

FrozenVoid wrote: post #11
Blammar wrote: post #3

I might have heard that in Godel's library there was a book with the note: "I have a truly marvelous proof that the U.S. Constitution is unstable, but the margin of this book is too small to write it out." More seriously, this is actually a bit reminiscent of Fermat's famous comment. I suppose when the lawbots become operational in a few years, we'll get a full logical analysis of the Constitution and find the loopho…

Godel's loophole is technicality of minor importance if its entirely confined to the constitution. The real loophole likely relates to presidential powers in relation to constitution itself: the expansion of executive in 20th century and executive orders that have not been found contradicting the law, might allow a precedent to create an "emergency powers" system to bypass constitution itself and rule by decree('exec…

What if the loophole is bigger and allows a individual congressperson to make a law or something?

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#52

Post by jojobas »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #33
rtpg wrote: post #7

This is the prototypical "wow the nerd tried to solve law and lawyering". Yes, the constitution can be ammended to be less democratic. It can also be entirely ignored by everyone, and things can also happen in ways that go against its text, with judges looking the other way! People are not magically bound by words on a piece of paper, so if you end up being able to go through the (extremely arduous! Moreso than many…

Wow, you're seriously underestimating this issue. For instance, the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") has an eternity clause in it that makes it unconstitutional to remove the basic principles in Articles 1 and 20. Many other modern constitutions have such clauses.[1] By the way, Article 4, paragraph 4 in the German constitution states: " All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this…

1. Alter articles 4 and 79 (this one contains the eternity clause) so that that they don't protect articles 1 and 20 .

2. Alter articles 1 and 20

3. ???

4. 4th Reich

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#53

Post by k_sze »

What if Gödel never actually found a loophole but simply intentionally left behind a cryptic puzzle, with the influence of his celebrity friends, so that future generations will keep scrutinizing the constitution, watching it for dangerous changes?

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#54

Post by bregma »

jimmyed wrote: post #9
eecc wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhm but wouldn’t that be a halting problem?

How is it the halting problem?

How is constitutional law subject to Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem?

Everything is computer science, or at least linearly transformable into computer science.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#55

Post by airhead969 »

rtpg wrote: post #7

This is the prototypical "wow the nerd tried to solve law and lawyering". Yes, the constitution can be ammended to be less democratic. It can also be entirely ignored by everyone, and things can also happen in ways that go against its text, with judges looking the other way! People are not magically bound by words on a piece of paper, so if you end up being able to go through the (extremely arduous! Moreso than many…

Agreements are only as good as the intentions of people carrying them out. And laws are "Cider House rules" without consistent and ethical interpretation and enforcement. All it takes to bring it all crashing down is the excessive complacency or moral turpitude of one generation of officials.

(It's probably a joke technicality that would never be allowed in the real world.)

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#57

Post by bregma »

Reading all the comments here, my reaction is 'Whoosh!". Perhaps it is possible to use Cantor diagonalization to demonstrate there are forms of humour that are not accessible to everyone?

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#58

Post by rtpg »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #42
msravi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP's point is that you can write anything in the constitution - that it can never be changed, or whatever - but that's of no value whatsoever, if a large majority of people agree and decide that it's an invalid document.

That's not how constitutional law works, though. Even if someone seizes power by force, the apparent constitutionality of their reign or lack thereof has many implications in international law and for the recognition of the new government, as well as for retrospective assessments, including the validity of the laws enacted by the regime. Dictators put great efforts in making their reign at least look constitutional.

France, for example, has gone through many different constitutions (the current one is from 1958). I don’t think they’re unique in changing up their foundational texts (and don’t forget places like the UK, that have no constitution, and rely on norms)

But my point was mainly around popular movements. Not going to comment on international judgement in these circumstances

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#60

Post by smitty1e »

andrepd wrote: post #31
rtpg wrote: post #7

This is the prototypical "wow the nerd tried to solve law and lawyering". Yes, the constitution can be ammended to be less democratic. It can also be entirely ignored by everyone, and things can also happen in ways that go against its text, with judges looking the other way! People are not magically bound by words on a piece of paper, so if you end up being able to go through the (extremely arduous! Moreso than many…

Wow, that's overly agressive. If you read the article, the story goes that upon asking him what government his native Austria had, Gödel commented "It was a republic, but the constitution was such that it finally was changed into a dictatorship." The judge commented that this could not happen in the U.S., and Gödel responded "Oh, yes, I can prove it". I don't see how you jump from this, to saying that Gödel, who was…

The point is that there is a system, with feedback loops.

The point is NOT that the system is somehow immaculate and incapable of drifting into instability.

Indeed, the concentration of power in the hands of the few we see about us is, arguably, the rejection of representative systems developed in the last several centuries in favor of historical authoritarian approaches.

Sweet, sweet panem et circenses => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

Post reply on HN