Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Thomas, Nov 1, 2013.

  1. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,529
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove Gödel God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
    I thought this was going to be fun, but I'm afraid higher modal logic leaves me scratching my head.

    So did this:
    I thought that theory was voiced by Anselm of Canterbury in 1078:
    Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", and then argued that this being could exist in the mind. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. (In his Proslogion.)

    I suppose it's Gödel's particular argument that is credited to Gödel.

    Perhaps Radarmark knows. And maybe he can explain 'higher modal logic' to my 'lower model noggin' ... but having looked at wiki, I don't hold out much hope (and that won't be your fault, Mr R!)
     
  2. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    543
    I don't get it, if I can imagine unicorn, they must also exist in reality? I'm not making fun, I really don't see the logic.
     
  3. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,529
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    It's a slippery one, but I think it goes something like ...
    ... and just when I thought I had it, it slips away.

    I'll get back to you :D
     
  4. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    543
    The worthwhile ones usually are!
     
  5. Gordian Knot

    Gordian Knot Being Deviant IS My Art.

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    1
    It makes no sense to me either. But then a mathematical model to prove God? You know that no such thing could possibly exist.
     
  6. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    True its not conclusive. He definitely one-upped Leonhard Euler's proof of God. Euler's Proof of God
     
  7. Paladin

    Paladin Purchased Bewilderment

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,084
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hmmm sort of raises the question though, if God does mathematically exist, who's version of God would it be?
     
  8. Gordian Knot

    Gordian Knot Being Deviant IS My Art.

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    1
    I expect it would be that particular mathematician's version, no?
     
  9. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    543
    "One sure mark of a fool is to dismiss anything that falls outside his experience as being impossible."
     
  10. Gordian Knot

    Gordian Knot Being Deviant IS My Art.

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    1
    I've played the fool many times. Turns out to be quite educational as well as a lot of fun! Because there is no way a mathematical model could be written to prove a God. Even if someone had claimed to have written such a thing how would one verify it?

    Scientists wrote a mathematical model on the probability of rogue waves. They determined that such waves would be a once in a lifetime occurrence. Turns out there are at least 10 a year. There's an old phrase amongst computer folk, "Garbage in, garbage out".

    Unless El Supremo came down and slapped an A+ on that mathematicians head, the math would always be speculation.

    "One sure mark of a fool is to think that anything outside his experience must be possible."
     
  11. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    543
    Is that me? Must I think it's possible because it's outside my experience?
    You know flying is impossible right, must be since wood is to heavy and we cant make the test people flap their arms quickly enough.
     
  12. Gordian Knot

    Gordian Knot Being Deviant IS My Art.

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    1
    That was kinda my point, Tea.

    "One sure mark of a fool is to dismiss anything that falls outside his experience as being impossible."
    "One sure mark of a fool is to think that anything outside his experience must be possible."

    Both are equally lacking statements.
     
  13. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    543
    oh, then I simply disagree. Think we can convince each other?
     
  14. Gordian Knot

    Gordian Knot Being Deviant IS My Art.

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    1
    Absolutely! You can totally convince me that I disagree with you. Ha!
     
  15. Sheshbazzar

    Sheshbazzar New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Forum nonsense. You have not understood the proof. Had you grasped it, you would be unable to remain unconvinced. It is a most pure & simple proof. No, it is neither Anselm's nor Leibniz' argument.
    In regard to forums:

     
  16. Gordian Knot

    Gordian Knot Being Deviant IS My Art.

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'll reiterate. I've played the fool many times. It is but another path to knowledge. A great many proverbs are like modern day sound bites. Their purpose is to attempt to distill into a few seconds a greater truth. The distillation itself often negates the wisdom it is attempting to emulate.

    It is not necessary to understand the proof as it, in effect, proves nothing. This was plainly stated in the article:

    "Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Gödel's proof was correct -- at least on a mathematical level -- by way of higher modal logic."

    See my example, above, about rogue waves that shows that mathematical models and simulations are only as good as the code is accurate.

    Shesh you are very good at quoting biblical verse. Are you capable of individual thought as well? Or is that left behind. That is not meant to be an insulting question. I would like to hear from you, the person, not more parroting of proverbs.
     
  17. Sheshbazzar

    Sheshbazzar New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can explain the proof if you want.
     
  18. Sheshbazzar

    Sheshbazzar New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    The proof is completely conclusive & completely satisfactory. Here is the original.

    It represents, in modal logic, the concept of necessary existence & the essence of essence.
     
  19. Jane-Q

    Jane-Q ...pain...

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0

    I've always thought that God is more of a "quality" than a "quantity."
    If you can quantify it, it's not God.

    Once upon a time, I knew what "modal logic" was. But I'm not about to spend the rest of the morning relearning. Seems to forgetful-me that there is, nonetheless, some deep problem here within the posited definition:

    by definition,
    God is that for which no greater can be conceived . . .

    Who was it (a philosopher, I think) who said . . . ?

    There is no number so large . . .
    that, if you add "1" to it,
    you will suddenly find yourself incapable of conceiving of this new number.

    Our powers of abstract conception are endlessly extensive.

    But say, instead of a concept (a very very large number), it is now a collection of physical objects in the real world -- say golf balls . . .
    this sea of golf balls would boggle not just the senses but the mind.
    You could not take-in the immensity which literally sits before you.

    This seems to contradict the conclusion put forth for Godel's argument, doesn't it? . . .

    . . . And while God exists in the understanding of the concept,
    we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality . . .

    One more golf ball?

    . . . Therefore, he must exist.

    Yeah? . . . Only as one massive splitting headache!

    Anselm's proof is, certifiably, an early triumph of abstract thinking.
    Godel's proof . . . ?

    Mathematics and abstract-thinking are tools for solving narrow problems.
    That's it. Tools. Period.
    What do they . . . (for that matter, what does Artificial Intelligence and computational devices) . . . tell us about the wider (and incredibly complicated) real world?

    Not one hell of a lot.
    Mental concepts are semantic meaning-units.
    Standing alone, they tell us not one iota about the syntax of human reality.
    Reality happens. Reality is a full syntax, not a single narrow meaning-unit.

    Even if God is (as Godel postulates) merely one very very large "meaning-unit" . . .

    Where (in this computation) is the interactive grammar of your and my and everybody's lived life?
    Where is the compassion? . . . the feeling of hope? . . . the fire of conviction?

     
  20. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2

    Please do. I am not stupid, but I do not understand your arguement. What is the space-time based experimental "proof" (that is usually what we mean by that term).
     

Share This Page