Why Such Disdain For Such Great Minds?

[DimWitted]

I am new to the forums and the more post I read, the more disheartened I become. Please excuse the length of this post. I hope you read the whole thing, but if you read the next two and final two paragraphs, you will have gotten the bulk of my argument.

There seems to be an extreme animosity (most prevalent amongst the most prolific and active members) for some of the greatest minds humanity has ever produced. The most notable is Einstein. The main criticism seems to be that he was an inferior philosopher who lacked a "complete understanding of reality."

I have yet to discover a single post where anyone outlines what constitutes a "complete understanding of reality." It seems to me that whenever anyone is asked for an explanation of the nature of reality (be it external reality or the mind) they give a generic and vacuous statement along the lines of "everything and nothing" then go on to proclaim that it unreasonable to expect such a deep and fundamental concept to be illustrated using words.

But what good is knowledge and understanding if you cannot convey it to others? If you can't explain something, do you truly understand it? Even if there is a value to such esoteric and personal knowledge it seems pointless to have a forum dedicated to ideas that defy explanation.

Einstein grasped a truth about the nature of reality that no one had understood before. He then used the tools of language and mathematics to formulate his idea in a manner that allowed them to be shared with others. I suspect that most site members criticism of scientists dedication to rigorous study stems from the fact that if their ideas were subject to similar rigorous scrutiny, they would crumble.

Additionally, such rigorous evaluation of an idea is not limited to fields of science. Many of the ideas of philosophy can be translated into a formal logical language (symbolic logic) and dealt with like mathematical formulas. Although I have not come across his name on this site, a prime example is Kurt Godel (considered by many to be the greatest philosopher since Aristotle) who was in many ways as important to philosophy as Einstein was to physics. His ideas can be treated with the same rigor as a scientific theorem since they are in stated in the formal language of logic.

I challenge anyone to present a theory as important to philosophy as Godel's "Incompleteness Theorem." For those of you who are unfamiliar: Godel managed to prove that for any set of Axioms that are strong enough to fit a simple set of criteria (basically that they allow what is equivalent of the practice of number theory). There will exist a statement within the system that, if untrue will render the system inconsistent. However, Godel showed that it is impossible to prove the statement as true using the Axioms of the system in which it is formulated. The implications of this theorem are massive. It has deep implications in regards to the human mind (it proves that our thought processes cannot be duplicated by a Turing Machine, or any Universal Computer).

I think that the true test of genius should not lie in the individuals confidence that they posses a thorough understanding of the nature of reality. But instead in their ability to illuminate their thoughts in a manner that others can understand them and learn from them. All geniuses are dedicated to the pursuit of truth and we are all flawed, thus incapable of achieving perfection of thought by ourselves. We need others to help us refine how we think. Therefore the merit of any man's (or woman's) intellect lies in their ability to expand others worldview and their capacity to absorb the ideas of others and expand their own mind in the process.

I imagine that this post will rustle some feathers and if it winds up getting me kicked off this forum then so be it. But I am really hoping that some of you will agree with me and perhaps we can move towards developing a means of dialogue that promotes the expression of our deepest thoughts and beliefs in a manner where others can understand and learn from them. Perhaps we can develop a culture in which we can be in awe of each others intellect and not see such feelings as evidence of our "lack of genius."

Matt
tub82911@temple.edu

[David Quinn]

Hi Matt,

You'll never be kicked off this forum for simply expressing your views. But it seems you are desiring a more academic kind of forum, whereas this is primarily a spiritual one.

Although I have not come across his name on this site, a prime example is Kurt Godel (considered by many to be the greatest philosopher since Aristotle) who was in many ways as important to philosophy as Einstein was to physics. His ideas can be treated with the same rigor as a scientific theorem since they are in stated in the formal language of logic.

I challenge anyone to present a theory as important to philosophy as Godel's "Incompleteness Theorem." For those of you who are unfamiliar: Godel managed to prove that for any set of Axioms that are strong enough to fit a simple set of criteria (basically that they allow what is equivalent of the practice of number theory). There will exist a statement within the system that, if untrue will render the system inconsistent. However, Godel showed that it is impossible to prove the statement as true using the Axioms of the system in which it is formulated. The implications of this theorem are massive. It has deep implications in regards to the human mind (it proves that our thought processes cannot be duplicated by a Turing Machine, or any Universal Computer).

Since you regard this to be important, let me ask this: Do you consider Godel's "Incompleteness Theorem" itself to be true or incomplete?

-

[oxytocinNA]

I am not a regular here - and - not spiritual. I just drop in on different forums from time to time.

The topic of Einstein always gets something going. Can't say as I have read any threads, about him here - or his work.
I have a big problem with some of it - which has led to some of what I like to call "science fantasy". As to making my case in a forum about the problems I have with this part of his work - what would be the value gained? Where I a professor at MIT and had a contract to write a book, to make money from it - then there would at least be some monetary value.

Quinn beat me to the punch on Godel - the self contradiction. Self contradicting theories, and simple statements abound. One of my favorites "Nothing can really be known". There are NO contradictions is reality - just faulty abstraction by individuals.

[David Quinn]

The topic of Einstein always gets something going.

Yes, he is definitely the poster boy of the modern conception of genius. The Dalai Lama of physics. It is why I focused on him in my blog.

Can't say as I have read any threads, about him here - or his work.
I have a big problem with some of it - which has led to some of what I like to call "science fantasy".

To be fair, Einstein didn't go along with the fantasy part. He actively fought against it. It depends on what we mean by "science fantasy", of course, but I take it to mean the way some physicists (not all of them) become childishly excited and mindlessly toss logic out the window in their eagerness to present the interesting quirks of quantum mechanics to their colleagues and to the public. Einstein was quite rightly appalled at this.

-

[oxytocinNA]

No - I actually have problems with some of his work, but I get your point.

[DimWitted]

Thanks for the positive responses. I had noticed that this forum seemed to be more focused on Philosophy, but I didn't realize it was considered "spiritual." I have always enjoyed philosophy and a side pursuit (my academic pursuits are centered around mathematics and computer science). Within computer science I specialize in Artificial Intelligence, so I am lucky enough to be in a technical field that requires at least some familiarity with aspects of Philosophy. So I enjoy Philosophical discussion although I always tend towards a very mathematical approach.

In regards to the question about if Godel's theorem is true or incomplete, it's an excellent question that I believe has a definitive answer that requires some explanation.

A major problem with all formal systems is that self referential statements often lead to paradoxes. In fact Cantor's Set Theory (which at one time was believed to be the ultimate tool for reasoning that would allow some of the most important questions in philosophy and mathematics to be addressed in a rigorous manner and answered using unassailable logic) was undermined by Russel's Paradox, which relies upon defining a set who's criterion for membership is self referential. Russel and Whitehead then dedicated years of their life to redesigning set theory in a manner that eliminated the paradox. Although they did manage to design a logic system that became the foundation for much of contemporary Mathematical Philosophy, there ultimate goal of a fully consistent theory was never realized.

Godel's incompleteness theorem actually proves that such a system cannot exist. The genius of his theorem is that it utilizes a self referential statement in it's proof. Godel managed to show that for any axiomatic system (with the proviso that when worded simply means: presuming the system's statements are powerful enough to make it useful) there is a statement that cannot be proven, but must be true. He used an operator P1(x)=y that means that the quality x must be true within the given system P in regards to the statement y. He then managed to show that for every P there must exist and x such that P1(x)=x and that there exists an x such that "x means this statement cannot be proven within the system P". However P1 assures that the statement x must be true and by the definition of x, it must also be unprovable. So self reference, which seemed to be the undoing of mathematics wound up being essential to proving one of Mathematics most important theorems. But as you can see, Godel's theorem is not a system that can be complete or incomplete. Instead it is a proof that ANY system that has the quality of consistency must also have the quality of incompleteness.

[Beingof1]

Thanks for the positive responses. I had noticed that this forum seemed to be more focused on Philosophy, but I didn't realize it was considered "spiritual." I have always enjoyed philosophy and a side pursuit (my academic pursuits are centered around mathematics and computer science). Within computer science I specialize in Artificial Intelligence, so I am lucky enough to be in a technical field that requires at least some familiarity with aspects of Philosophy. So I enjoy Philosophical discussion although I always tend towards a very mathematical approach.

In regards to the question about if Godel's theorem is true or incomplete, it's an excellent question that I believe has a definitive answer that requires some explanation.

A major problem with all formal systems is that self referential statements often lead to paradoxes. In fact Cantor's Set Theory (which at one time was believed to be the ultimate tool for reasoning that would allow some of the most important questions in philosophy and mathematics to be addressed in a rigorous manner and answered using unassailable logic) was undermined by Russel's Paradox, which relies upon defining a set who's criterion for membership is self referential. Russel and Whitehead then dedicated years of their life to redesigning set theory in a manner that eliminated the paradox. Although they did manage to design a logic system that became the foundation for much of contemporary Mathematical Philosophy, there ultimate goal of a fully consistent theory was never realized.

Godel's incompleteness theorem actually proves that such a system cannot exist. The genius of his theorem is that it utilizes a self referential statement in it's proof. Godel managed to show that for any axiomatic system (with the proviso that when worded simply means: presuming the system's statements are powerful enough to make it useful) there is a statement that cannot be proven, but must be true. He used an operator P1(x)=y that means that the quality x must be true within the given system P in regards to the statement y. He then managed to show that for every P there must exist and x such that P1(x)=x and that there exists an x such that "x means this statement cannot be proven within the system P". However P1 assures that the statement x must be true and by the definition of x, it must also be unprovable. So self reference, which seemed to be the undoing of mathematics wound up being essential to proving one of Mathematics most important theorems. But as you can see, Godel's theorem is not a system that can be complete or incomplete. Instead it is a proof that ANY system that has the quality of consistency must also have the quality of incompleteness.

Bingo - and this is what is needed to understand the dilemma of existence so it ends up being philosophy after all ;)

All processes are arbitrary in the point of beginning and ending. The limit, no matter what it is, is arbitrary. This means we apply the limit to derive a satisfactory outcome (such as lift for an aircraft) but in reality all limits explode into the infinite.

The very act of applying a limit, no matter what it is, means the limit has already been transcended by default.

[DimWitted]

Beingoft,

I'm a bit confused by your response and I am hoping you could clarify some of your statements as well as provide definitions for some of your terminology.

All processes are arbitrary in the point of beginning and ending. The limit, no matter what it is, is arbitrary. This means we apply the limit to derive a satisfactory outcome (such as lift for an aircraft) but in reality all limits explode into the infinite.

When you talk of taking limits, are you referring to taking a mathematical limit (basically Calc I)? You mentioned lift for aircraft. So I thought that you might mean finding the minimum magnitude of a force vector (presumably in the direction of the nose of the plane) required for an airplane to take off. However I am unsure, since such a limit is definitely not arbitrary. It is also true that in Calc I, the methods that students are taught for taking limits involves using infinity as a numeric value in equations. But this is a simplified method that is used as shorthand to allow students to take derivatives and find integrals without having to learn the formal definitions. The proper means of taking a limit actually uses what is called "epsilon delta" notation and it never requires infinity to be used as a number. I will stop here since I don't want get ahead of myself, owing to my suspicion that I have grossly misinterpreted what you are trying to say.

I am assuming that when you say, "processes beginning and ends are arbitrary" has to do with the fact that we live in a continuum of events and we merely pick an event that we find convenient to be labeled as the beginning and another that is convenient to call the end. However, I am at a loss for what you mean by "all limits explode into the infinite?" Please forgive my need for a more exact definition but; could you please provide a formal definition for what concept you are referring to when you say "limit," why the "limit" is arbitrary? Most importantly, why do "all limits explode into the infinite?" In my experience part of what makes limits so fascinating is that there are situations, such as the summation of infinite series, in which against all common sense, the limit is finite not infinite.

Also, if I have used any terminology you are not familiar with, please contact me so that I may clarify. I am very curious to hear your response and I would hate it if my unfortunate tendency of assuming everyone is familiar with the same fields of study would impede your ability to respond. Thanks, I look forward to your response.

[DimWitted]

Additionally,

What is it that people are calling science fantasy? Is it Quantum Mechanics that people take issue with, or is it one of Einsteins theories? Also on the topic of the usefulness of his work. The reason that we have nuclear power today is Einstein. Relativity is also necessary for GPS's to function properly and there are many other practical applications. Whats more, many other later theories that had major impacts on our day to day lives are built upon relativity. So a lot of the technology that helps us in fields such as chemistry, telecommunications, medicine, etc are thanks in no small part to Einsteins discoveries.

[David Quinn]

Thanks for the positive responses. I had noticed that this forum seemed to be more focused on Philosophy, but I didn't realize it was considered "spiritual." I have always enjoyed philosophy and a side pursuit (my academic pursuits are centered around mathematics and computer science). Within computer science I specialize in Artificial Intelligence, so I am lucky enough to be in a technical field that requires at least some familiarity with aspects of Philosophy. So I enjoy Philosophical discussion although I always tend towards a very mathematical approach.

In regards to the question about if Godel's theorem is true or incomplete, it's an excellent question that I believe has a definitive answer that requires some explanation.

A major problem with all formal systems is that self referential statements often lead to paradoxes. In fact Cantor's Set Theory (which at one time was believed to be the ultimate tool for reasoning that would allow some of the most important questions in philosophy and mathematics to be addressed in a rigorous manner and answered using unassailable logic) was undermined by Russel's Paradox, which relies upon defining a set who's criterion for membership is self referential. Russel and Whitehead then dedicated years of their life to redesigning set theory in a manner that eliminated the paradox. Although they did manage to design a logic system that became the foundation for much of contemporary Mathematical Philosophy, there ultimate goal of a fully consistent theory was never realized.

Godel's incompleteness theorem actually proves that such a system cannot exist. The genius of his theorem is that it utilizes a self referential statement in it's proof. Godel managed to show that for any axiomatic system (with the proviso that when worded simply means: presuming the system's statements are powerful enough to make it useful) there is a statement that cannot be proven, but must be true. He used an operator P1(x)=y that means that the quality x must be true within the given system P in regards to the statement y. He then managed to show that for every P there must exist and x such that P1(x)=x and that there exists an x such that "x means this statement cannot be proven within the system P". However P1 assures that the statement x must be true and by the definition of x, it must also be unprovable. So self reference, which seemed to be the undoing of mathematics wound up being essential to proving one of Mathematics most important theorems. But as you can see, Godel's theorem is not a system that can be complete or incomplete. Instead it is a proof that ANY system that has the quality of consistency must also have the quality of incompleteness.

I can see how such a "proof" could be interesting for academics and scientists in a technical/professional sense, but I just can't see how it has any bearing on the philosophic issue of determining truth. As far as determining truth is concerned, we might as well name it "Godel's Most Useless theorem".

Just the fact that people accept his theorem as being true, including by Godel and yourself, is proof enough of this. If Godel can use logic to determine truth, then we all can. And so as interesting as the theorem might be in other areas of life, when it comes to the realm of deep philosophical reasoning, it is not really saying anything at all. It has nothing to contribute.

What is it that people are calling science fantasy? Is it Quantum Mechanics that people take issue with, or is it one of Einsteins theories?

From my perspective, the fantasy part has nothing to do with the science itself, but rather with the philosophic hype, naivity, lies, and irrationality that swirls around modern physics in particular.

An example is the belief that physics deals with the fundamental fabric of reality. Another is that physics will one day discover the theory of everything. In other words, all those grand, hyped-up claims made by eager, naive physicists who, like sufferers of Tourette's Syndrome, occasionally feel compelled to suddenly break out with bouts of pure religious mania. (Probably the result of their having to suppress their philosophical urges all the time, because of their work. I always have the impression that many physicists are really philosophers working in the wrong field).


-

[oxytocinNA]

Context is the issue. I do not care about faulty abstraction. The Godel topic will give me a headache. Not for lack of understanding. Nor an inability to make my the point. Just too tiring to run down.

I made the fantasy remark so I will elaborate on my position: It has to do with context errors, that were made - that lead to contradictory ideas. The field of physics has it's functional side - which is often wrapped in ideas that have context errors. It leads to what I like to refer to as science fantasy. This fantasy gets promoted to young minds. Not a fan of this. You want to short circuit frail young minds - throw contradiction at them. A contradiction is un-resolvable (sorry for stating the obvious - and being redundant in the process) - yet they are told to believe it is (or might be) possible. Again - there are NO contradictions in reality - just faulty abstraction. This is as far as I will take this (for better or worse).

The term "fabric of reality" is pretty humorous.

Anyway - I do not deal in philosophy* or spirituality so....
*My concern is only for proper alignment with reality - some call this philosophy. To me it is the science of efficient existence. This means correct knowledge of environment - existence. The degree to which one achieves such knowledge, is the potential degree of efficacy one might achieve. There is nothing spiritual (to me) - just practical (mens sana in corpore sano).

So even if you are not spiritual - occasionally topics come up here, that are worth dropping in on.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But as you can see, Godel's theorem is not a system that can be complete or incomplete. Instead it is a proof that ANY system that has the quality of consistency must also have the quality of incompleteness.

As Hofstadter wrote: "in short, Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved".

And don't forget Gödel was quite a fanatic Platonist and I guess he fancied his theory actually opened up the possibility of a mathematical or absolute kind of truth or reality, and not deny one at all.

It's weird however how many people still try to use his theorem in a philosophically opposite way as Gödel himself thought about it. Perhaps they do not understand the notions of completeness and proof? Think about what Hofstadter actually might mean here. Why would truth be a "stronger" notion in his view?

[Bobo]

The implications of this theorem are massive. It has deep implications in regards to the human mind (it proves that our thought processes cannot be duplicated by a Turing Machine, or any Universal Computer).

Did Godel claimed this kind of implications from his theorem?

It's weird however how many people still try to use his theorem in a philosophically opposite way as Gödel himself thought about it. Perhaps they do not understand the notions of completeness and proof? Think about what Hofstadter actually might mean here. Why would truth be a "stronger" notion in his view?

Here's another quote from Hofstadter:

"Relying on words to lead you to the truth is like relying on an incomplete formal system to lead you to the truth. A formal system will give you some truths, but as we shall soon see, a formal system, no matter how powerful—cannot lead to all truths"

I guess he means that truth cannot be formally defined.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Here's another quote from Hofstadter:

"Relying on words to lead you to the truth is like relying on an incomplete formal system to lead you to the truth. A formal system will give you some truths, but as we shall soon see, a formal system, no matter how powerful—cannot lead to all truths"

I guess he means that truth cannot be formally defined.

Yes this was about how "proof" can be formally defined and truth not, since truth as the supplier of a system's axioms will aways derive from a higher order system ad infinitum.

Note that "words" as Hofstadter uses here are probably related to Tarski's "fully interpreted languages". Common language is not formal at all, and sentences can be true and false simultaneously or have multiple meanings. This way they can be leading and misleading regarding truth at the same time!

[David Quinn]

Common language is not formal at all, and sentences can be true and false simultaneously or have multiple meanings. This way they can be leading and misleading regarding truth at the same time!

This goes to the heart of the difference between philosophising spiritually and philosophising academically.

In spirituality, the individual's own subjective understanding is king. At its best, the individual's subjective understanding is fully open to ultimate reality and he is fully clear about every word he utters. As such, there is a consistency which permeates everything he says, even though he uses nothing other than ordinary language.

In academia, it is the opposite. The subjective aspect of things is entirely done away with and instead academics try to reach a mutual consensus about what each word means. This invariably leads to more and more pedantry and technical side-splitting, due to the fact that no one can ever seem to agree with each other. The end result is copious amounts of convoluted debate that is entirely soulless, all for the sake of chasing a chimera which can never be reached.

-

[Liberty Sea]

This goes to the heart of the difference between philosophising spiritually and philosophising academically.

In spirituality, the individual's own subjective understanding is king. At its best, the individual's subjective understanding is fully open to ultimate reality and he is fully clear about every word he utters. As such, there is a consistency which permeates everything he says, even though he uses nothing other than ordinary language.

In academia, it is the opposite. The subjective aspect of things is entirely done away with and instead academics try to reach a mutual consensus about what each word means. This invariably leads to more and more pedantry and technical side-splitting, due to the fact that no one can ever seem to agree with each other. The end result is copious amounts of convoluted debate that is entirely soulless, all for the sake of chasing a chimera which can never be reached.

-

In your words, I philosophize spiritually but communicate academically.
There is no possibility of communication without objectivity. If you just keep your thinking to your own then sure, you don't need it.

[David Quinn]

There is enough objectivity (i.e. consensus) in ordinary language to be able to communicate effectively. Spiritually speaking, the purpose of communication is to point people's attention to the nature and whereabouts of ultimate reality, and ordinary language is perfectly sufficient for that.

The trouble with trying to communicate with academics about spiritual matters is that they have no interest in discovering ultimate reality for themselves. Indeed, they have deliberately chosen to lose themselves in the uber-technicality-gone-mad convolutions of academia in order to avoid all possibility of ever coming into contact with it. So you'll be fighting an uphill battle there.

I reckon it's better to help people become disillusioned with academia, so that they can clear their minds and begin to reason properly again.

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Of course the same things can be said in way more complex and wordy forms. Donald Davidson is an example of a reasonable academic philosopher who argues for a fundamental uncertainty in language, that is, one not really decodes external meanings but interpretation remains purely based on ones own orientation and assumptions. Even an alien from another planet could make sense when the right orientation and idea would be already there.

• ... meaning is objective in the sense that most of what speakers say about the world is true of the world. Some critics object that this statement rests on an optimistic assessment of human capacities for judgment; however, Davidson’s point is not an empirical claim that could turn out to be mistaken. Rather, it is a statement of the methodology of radical interpretation, an assumption an interpreter makes to gain access to her subject’s language. Her only path into his language is by way of the world they share since she makes sense of his sentences by discerning patterns in the relations between those sentences and the objects and events in the world that cause him to hold those sentences true. If too many of his utterances are false, then the link between what he says and thinks, on the one hand, and the world, on the other, is severed; and the enterprise of interpretation halts. Finding too much unexplainable error in his statements about the world, therefore, is not an option, if she is going to interpret him. - from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

• Davidson emphasises the holistic character of the mental (both in terms of the interdependence that obtains between various forms of knowledge as well as the interconnected character of attitudes and of attitudes and behaviour). He has, at times, also referred to his position as involving a ‘coherence’ theory of truth and of knowledge. ... Davidson eschews any attempt to provide an account of the nature of truth, maintaining that truth is an absolutely central concept that cannot be reduced to or replaced by any other notion . His employment of the notion of coherence is best seen as reflecting his commitment to the fundamentally rational and holistic character of the mind. - from: Stanford Encyclopedia

I guess this is as far as any academic could go with this.

[jupiviv]

• ... meaning is objective in the sense that most of what speakers say about the world is true of the world. Some critics object that this statement rests on an optimistic assessment of human capacities for judgment; however, Davidson’s point is not an empirical claim that could turn out to be mistaken. Rather, it is a statement of the methodology of radical interpretation, an assumption an interpreter makes to gain access to her subject’s language. Her only path into his language is by way of the world they share since she makes sense of his sentences by discerning patterns in the relations between those sentences and the objects and events in the world that cause him to hold those sentences true. If too many of his utterances are false, then the link between what he says and thinks, on the one hand, and the world, on the other, is severed; and the enterprise of interpretation halts. Finding too much unexplainable error in his statements about the world, therefore, is not an option, if she is going to interpret him. - from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

All I got from that is that if we want to interpret the statements of others to be true, then we can't interpret them to be false. At least he managed to say something, which puts him far above the average academic philosophers of today.

[Cathy Preston]

I thought what he was saying is what speakers say of about the world is true in the sense that is how they understand the world. So even if what the speaker says is clearly untrue, it provides insight into how the speaker relates to the world and thus is a starting point for communication.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The "radical interpretation" meant neither in my view. It's about the assumption that there is already a relation between words and worlds, an assumption underlying all attempts at even trying to interpret the slightest bit. There is the "commonality" which starts with an idea, a certain grip on "truth"; starting with yourself. So any key to proper listening and interpretation lies purely in this web of attitudes and behavior outside of any translation or dissection. This is why natural language is fundamentally informal but also why it can be more connected to truth than any formal language and logic ever can.

[jupiviv]

The "radical interpretation" meant neither in my view. It's about the assumption that there is already a relation between words and worlds, an assumption underlying all attempts at even trying to interpret the slightest bit. There is the "commonality" which starts with an idea, a certain grip on "truth"; starting with yourself. So any key to proper listening and interpretation lies purely in this web of attitudes and behavior outside of any translation or dissection. This is why natural language is fundamentally informal but also why it can be more connected to truth than any formal language and logic ever can.

If language isn't a means to logically express the truth, then it has no relation to the truth. Trees may be said to have a "language" with which they naturally communicate with birds or wood ants, but that doesn't mean they are expressing the truth.

[n2xn]

I can see how such a "proof" could be interesting for academics and scientists in a technical/professional sense, but I just can't see how it has any bearing on the philosophic issue of determining truth. As far as determining truth is concerned, we might as well name it "Godel's Most Useless theorem".

Just the fact that people accept his theorem as being true, including by Godel and yourself, is proof enough of this. If Godel can use logic to determine truth, then we all can. And so as interesting as the theorem might be in other areas of life, when it comes to the realm of deep philosophical reasoning, it is not really saying anything at all. It has nothing to contribute.

I am not sure about that, because his theorem could simply be translated into a dialectic with almost no thought. Everything being incomplete implies something must be added. Thus synthesis.
its amusing, what if they find the Grand Unified Theory of Everything? Well, for it to be of Everything, it must take every challenge. Dialectics reworded, both of them, if you ask me. Two sides that will eventually come together.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The "radical interpretation" meant neither in my view. It's about the assumption that there is already a relation between words and worlds, an assumption underlying all attempts at even trying to interpret the slightest bit. There is the "commonality" which starts with an idea, a certain grip on "truth"; starting with yourself. So any key to proper listening and interpretation lies purely in this web of attitudes and behavior outside of any translation or dissection. This is why natural language is fundamentally informal but also why it can be more connected to truth than any formal language and logic ever can.

If language isn't a means to logically express the truth, then it has no relation to the truth. Trees may be said to have a "language" with which they naturally communicate with birds or wood ants, but that doesn't mean they are expressing the truth.

Davidson went one step further and said "there is no such thing as language" in the way most philosophers and linguists assume it at least. The idea is that while an expression might seem to contain some truth, it will never be located there or logically derived somehow from this sentence alone by parsing or analyzing it and its context. Truth, even mundane ones, can only be found when already possessed, using it to interpret "skillfully". And "meaning" therefore only has a very murky relation to any structured language.

Language is very good for shaping thought processes, but not for providing them. To provide challenges by illuminating its own problems and the problems of the worlds we've built on fleeting shadows of meanings. But human language doesn't express any more (or less) truth to us than the whispers of trees reveal to the wood ants. Just imagine that!

[mental vagrant]

The "radical interpretation" meant neither in my view. It's about the assumption that there is already a relation between words and worlds, an assumption underlying all attempts at even trying to interpret the slightest bit. There is the "commonality" which starts with an idea, a certain grip on "truth"; starting with yourself. So any key to proper listening and interpretation lies purely in this web of attitudes and behavior outside of any translation or dissection. This is why natural language is fundamentally informal but also why it can be more connected to truth than any formal language and logic ever can.

If language isn't a means to logically express the truth, then it has no relation to the truth. Trees may be said to have a "language" with which they naturally communicate with birds or wood ants, but that doesn't mean they are expressing the truth.

Davidson went one step further and said "there is no such thing as language" in the way most philosophers and linguists assume it at least. The idea is that while an expression might seem to contain some truth, it will never be located there or logically derived somehow from this sentence alone by parsing or analyzing it and its context. Truth, even mundane ones, can only be found when already possessed, using it to interpret "skillfully". And "meaning" therefore only has a very murky relation to any structured language.

Language is very good for shaping thought processes, but not for providing them. To provide challenges by illuminating its own problems and the problems of the worlds we've built on fleeting shadows of meanings. But human language doesn't express any more (or less) truth to us than the whispers of trees reveal to the wood ants. Just imagine that!

Nice little snippet of irony :)