Let's Talk About the Subject of Metaphysics
For something different today I thought I would post a discussion on metaphysics from the voice of someone I do not know nor follow. Simply to listen to Leo Gura's idea of metaphysics and how he might describe it in his own estimation. Here is Leo's s website info and tabs to his site menu selections. I've also have provided the transcript to today's video below.
As always, I'm listening from the perspectives of Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy (originally described as the "philosophy of organism" by Whitehead) and from Dr. John B. Cobb, Jr's development of process theology. I'll be curious to hear how alike or unlike Leo's perception of metaphysics is to process thought.
If you have any comments let me know in the comment section. I do not typically respond to them but do read them. I'd much rather viewers participate with one another than simply respond to my own replies. I find value in the difference of struggle and conflict, questions and curiosity. And please, no forward links to other site discussions which are unrelated to this site's subject matters. I usually do not post those forward links.
As always, peace and blessings,
R.E. Slater
January 26, 2023
John B. Cobb.The Center for Process Studies
Metaphysics
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality; the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, cause and effect, necessity and possibility.
Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and axiology. It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.
The word "metaphysics" comes from the Greek word metaphysika, meaning "after the Physics" in reference to works that are studied after the study of Physics.
It has been suggested that the term might have been coined by a first century CE editor who assembled various small selections of Aristotle's works into the treatise we now know by the name Metaphysics (μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, meta ta physika, lit. 'after the Physics ' – another of Aristotle's works).
Thirteenth century CE Italian philosopher Thomas Aquinas understood Metaphysics to refer to the chronological or pedagogical order among philosophical studies, with "metaphysical sciences" referring to "those that we study after having mastered the sciences that deal with the physical world".
Metaphysics studies questions related to what it is for something to exist and what types of existence are there. Metaphysics seeks to answer, in an abstract and fully general manner, the questions of: What is it that exists; and What it is like.
As a Noun
The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. Metaphysics would regard the question of initial conditions for the universe as belonging to the realm of metaphysics or religious abstract theory with no basis in reality.
What is Metaphysics in Simple Words?
Metaphysics is derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
What are the Branches of Metaphysics?
Ontology of Being - the realm of essenceCosmology - describing the physical and religious worlds as perceived by science and theologyMeta-metaphysics - philosophical theology, natural theology, and religious theology as applied to both philosophical and natural theologies broadly (remember, science is it's own philosophy from mechanistic reductionism in the 19th century to the abstract/organic of metamodernism today)Epistemology - How do we know what we know; or, how is our knowledge of knowing what we knowing either helpful or misguiding?Practical Metaphysics
- Ethics
- Social, Economic and Political Philosophy
- Aesthetics (such as art)
- Logic, and
- The History of Philosophy
Examples of Some Metaphysical Questions - see this link here
For Further Inquiry - The Outline of metaphysics - Wikipedia
Metaphysical Implications
of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
Part 1
Wikipedia - Godel's Incompleteness TheoremGödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that are concerned with the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories. These results, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The theorems are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible.The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.Employing a diagonal argument, Gödel's incompleteness theorems were the first of several closely related theorems on the limitations of formal systems. They were followed by Tarski's undefinability theorem on the formal undefinability of truth, Church's proof that Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem is unsolvable, and Turing's theorem that there is no algorithm to solve the halting problem.
Godel's Theorem from a Process Perceptive
Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says (i) all closed systems are unprovable within themselves and, that (ii) all open systems are rightly understood as incomplete. - R.E. SlaterIntegral Hermeneutics ala Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, by R.E. Slater
VIDEO Transcript
0:03
[Music]
0:21
you
0:46
I'm super super excited about this topic this is one of my favorite topics to think about and to talk about which is
0:53
the topic of strange loops and paradoxes because this gets to the very essence of
0:59
what reality is and I love to think about the paradoxes that result when the
1:05
mind is trying to think about reality I've actually been wanting to shoot this episode for over three years now about
1:12
girdles and completeness theorem but it's difficult to organize all this
1:17
material takes a lot of work to organize it in a way that's logical and simple that can be understood by ordinary
1:23
people in a non-technical way and so that's what you're gonna get here today I will explain girl's incompleteness
1:31
theorem at a high level without getting you bogged down into the technicalities
1:36
and the math and then the logic of it because it's a pretty technical proof it's dozens of pages long it's very
1:43
complicated and there's no need to go into that because what we care about here is not the mathematics of the proof
1:48
which is sound and if you want you can go watch videos specifically about the mathematics of the proof or you can go
1:55
actually read the proof itself there are many versions of it what we really care
2:00
about though is we care about the metaphysical and epistemic implications of the proof and a lot of people who are
2:11
rational and scientifically minded they don't really comprehend the ramifications and in fact many logicians
2:18
today and mathematicians today and scientists today who are working on the cutting edge you know areas of science
2:25
and quantum mechanics and cosmology and all this sort of stuff they still haven't really grasped the consequences
2:32
the philosophical consequences of girdles and completeness theorem because what it's easy to do is easy to say just
2:37
oh well this is just mathematics this is just logic there are no consequences which applied to broader domains there
2:45
are no philosophical consequences but actually there are and so that's what we're gonna focus on here today I really
2:54
want to give a call out to Douglas Hofstadter who is
3:00
influenced by thinking about this a lot and I already called him out in reality
3:05
too strange loop by which I mean I talked about his books I talked about the importance of his work and his
3:10
concept of the strange loop so I'll be referring to that concept here quite
3:15
heavily and I'm not gonna go into really explaining that concept much because I
3:21
already have an episode called realities a strange loop which explains that in great detail so go check that out you
3:27
can consider this as sort of a continuation of that episode that's like a part two we're gonna go into a lot
3:34
more detail that I couldn't go into there and specifically I want to talk about Douglas Hofstadter's a brilliant
3:42
book called girdle Ashur and BA or GE B for sure this is a book that's really
3:49
popular among nerds it's a very technical book but it's also written in
3:55
a sort of poetic manner which is quite fun and interesting it's it's very thick it's over 700 pages long it'll take you
4:01
a month to go through it it contains logical proofs and all this sort of heavy stuff but it also talks about Zen
4:07
it talks about a sure the the painter and the the the draw the drawings and
4:13
sketches that he did and the etchings that he did talks about BA and it draws all these interesting interconnections
4:18
between what is the mind what is logic what are these strange loops how does it all interconnect together so definitely
4:29
go read that book if you're really interested in what I'm talking about here here I'm just gonna give you sort of an overview of the issues that he
4:35
taught that he touches upon we're going to talk about the limitations of rationality and logic we're going to
4:42
talk about the profound interconnections between logic and non duality and we're
4:48
gonna get a better understanding of what paradox is and why paradox exists and
4:53
why paradox is necessary so let me just
5:00
refresh your memory about what a strange loop is a strange loop is this odd sort
5:05
of hierarchy that goes around in a circle such that when you move up the hierarchy eventually you end up
5:12
precisely where you began and so the prototypical example of a strange loop would be the Penrose
5:18
triangle which interconnects to itself in the sort of impossible seeming way
5:24
and it might seem like such a thing can only happen as an illusion inside of a
5:31
drawing or a video game or something but actually what you'll see here which I
5:38
hope to convince you of is that these strange loops actually are very fundamental to the very structure of reality itself everything right here
5:46
that you're seeing this is a strange loop happening to you now you might
5:51
wonder of course Leo why are you qualified to talk about this topic are
5:57
you a logician are you a mathematician where's your PhD are you an academic are you a professor and if not then what
6:03
gives you the right to think that you can understand the the philosophical consequences of of these proofs well
6:14
here's the thing it's very interesting that people who are skeptics academics
6:19
and scientists and rationalists that they they love to criticise religious
6:26
people when religious people make appeals to Authority so if you ask a
6:31
religious person for example well why do you believe in your religion and in God and in all this other sort of sort of
6:37
stuff the person will say well it's because my Bible says so and the Bible
6:42
is the Word of God and you will say well how do you know it's the Word of God well because the Bible says it's the
6:48
Word of God or because my priest or my religion tells me and my priest you know
6:53
he's high up he's the Pope up you know in the hierarchy and so he's the authority figure he knows better than I
7:00
do and in fact maybe he has a connection to God so he can interpret the Bible for me and and speak the truth to me and
7:06
that's how I know that it's true that's why I believe it now of course the rationalist will quite rightly
7:13
deride the theist in this case for making this appeal to
7:18
authority because logically we know that there's no connection between Authority and between truth that these two things
7:24
are completely independent just because someone has Authority and credentials doesn't mean that they
7:30
really understand what they're talking about but what's really ironic is that
7:36
the rationalists and the scientists and the atheists they make this exact same mistake when it comes to their own
7:42
positions about science and about mathematics and logic so see here you're
7:48
asking for my qualifications in my PhD and all this in order to listen to what I have to say but that's the exact same
7:53
mistake because what you're assuming there is that if you had someone up here speaking to you who produced this video
8:00
for example or this lecture who had a PhD from MIT or from Caltech that
8:07
because of that you would assume that he understands what reality is and because of that you would assume that he
8:13
understands all the philosophical metaphysical epistemic implications of girdles and completeness theorem and
8:19
that's where you would be wrong because there you are also making appeal to Authority just because someone has a PhD
8:25
just because someone want a Nobel Prize or is a good scientist or a good mathematician does not mean that they
8:31
really understand the philosophical implications of a thing you see because
8:39
actually to succeed within academia that is that's a social hierarchy that you're
8:45
climbing just like a church and scientifically minded people don't
8:51
appreciate the significance of this that you are climbing this hierarchy and to climb this hierarchy has very little to
8:57
do with truth to climb the hierarchy that's how well you play the game that's
9:02
also how good of a technical scientist you are how good do you do lab work how good do you write your research papers
9:10
so if you're good at doing that you'll climb the hierarchy and you'll get to the top and you'll have authority you'll
9:15
have a PhD maybe multiple PhDs you'll have all sorts of accreditation zand and prizes and medals and and awards and
9:23
your work will get published and you will be this big-name celebrity scientist maybe but does that really
9:29
mean that you truly understand the consequences of your work because see
9:35
there's a big difference between just doing technical work and having some sort of narrow technical
9:41
scientific result that's that's fine that's good but then do you understand
9:47
all the ramifications of that for life at large and for reality as a whole
9:52
that's a totally another matter and actually what you'll find is that the
9:57
people who are really good technicians a scientist that actually they're not that good at understanding the full
10:04
ramifications of their work because it's precisely by being technicians and being hyper specialized and hyper focused that
10:11
they narrow their focus that they get so good at that but then they lose sight of the bigger picture you see so what I'm
10:20
asking you here is not to believe me but to just think through these ideas for
10:27
yourself that's where the truth comes from it doesn't come from an authority
10:33
figure it comes from you sitting down and thinking through this stuff for yourself and it doesn't come from
10:38
believing me and in fact I don't want you to believe me and if you're skeptical that's good being skeptical is great I'm the biggest
10:46
skeptic there ever is and of course what I do is I apply to a skepticism first
10:52
and foremost to my own theories and to myself and that's something you don't really see in the videos that's
10:58
something that happens deep inside of me that's something you should also be doing deep inside yourself thinking through all this for yourself and then
11:04
you see does it really make sense and if you follow that sort of methodology then what she'll discover is that a lot of
11:10
people whom you might think otherwise are these authority figures that actually they're full of and they
11:15
don't really understand the bigger picture so that's the qualifications
11:23
situation now in a sense this episode is
11:29
going to mirror the episode about quantum mechanics that I did in that
11:35
episode I talked about how there's this sort of myth of science that goes around
11:40
and all in our culture we're how people in mainstream culture think of science
11:48
and what science is and how science works is a very simplified idealized version of how science really works and
11:55
that in fact signs much more messy more complicated than people think well likewise with logic and reason there is
12:08
the actual doing of logic and reason the hard-core proofs the stuff that you can
12:13
study in graduate school which is very very different than what most people in
12:18
mainstream culture including many atheists and scientific minded people
12:24
think logic and reason are because in our mainstream culture we have this myth
12:30
of logic and reason as being the pinnacle of discovering truth it's it's
12:37
the one true way that you know that something is true is because it's logical and it's reasonable and that
12:44
logic and reason are somehow the antithesis of faith and belief and then
12:51
if you if you have faith or belief in something that means it's false whereas if you have a logical proof and you have
12:56
reasons and you're rational that means that you're on the side of truth and so
13:04
what I've discovered is I've discovered that rationalist materialists atheist
13:10
skeptics scientists doctors and professors they fall into this particular trap which is the dogmas of
13:18
Reason it turns out that rationality itself comes with dogmas just like
13:25
religion and I've identified half a dozen or so of these dogmas these I call
13:32
the core dogmas of rationality number 1 the first Dogma is that reason is
13:39
sufficient to understand the world that is something that rationalist just
13:45
believe and take on faith they don't prove to themselves that the whole world
13:52
is subject to their reason and that reason will be sufficient to understand
13:57
the whole world that's not proved in any empirical way that's just assumed that's why it's a
14:03
Dogma number two it's assumed that contradiction or paradox means that
14:10
you've made an error again that's also not something that's actually proven
14:17
empirically that's something that's just assumed implicitly and never really
14:22
questioned which is why the dogma number three it's assumed that the laws of
14:29
nature are reasonable again you didn't
14:34
go out and actually investigate every single law of nature empirically and then concluded yes they're all
14:41
reasonable that would actually be a scientific method instead what you did is you just assume that well all the
14:48
laws of nature must be reasonable you just assume that without actually testing your hypothesis so that's a
14:55
Dogma because you know you might go out there you might encounter a law which turns out to be unreasonable
15:03
what do you do then are you going to admit that all the laws of nature aren't reasonable at that point or are you
15:09
gonna stick to your guns and keep insisting that no everything is reasonable see these things can't be
15:17
taken for granted you have to actually test all of your dogmas all of your assumptions which even rational people
15:25
forget to do a fourth Dogma is that
15:30
logical proof is the highest standard it's just sort of implicitly assumed by
15:36
people that if you really want a lot you
15:41
know an airtight argument or you want the truth then there's going to be a
15:47
logical proof which proves it to you and if you have this logical proof then anything else is below that and that's
15:55
the enter that we should aspire to and that if you can't meet that standard then you
16:00
really don't have anything solid you're just speculating you're just doing philosophy or it's just some religious mumbo-jumbo or it's just some new-age
16:07
wishful thinking if you can't logically prove it number five is that logic ality
16:18
is equal to deep understanding of a topic dogma number six is that
16:26
rationality is self-consistent which of
16:31
course it actually turns out not to be which is where girls incompleteness theorem comes in and we'll get into all
16:37
those dirty details in a few minutes dogma number seven if a thing is
16:45
irrational then it must be false dogma number eight is that science and
16:55
math is rational whereas religion is irrational and
17:02
therefore what is true and what is false this is just assumed it's never tested
17:10
it's never put to the test no rational person actually goes and bothers to
17:16
study and seriously practice every single religion in the world to test whether they're actually true no one
17:24
does that you see it's very interesting on this works you prejudge the situation
17:29
you say oh well they can't possibly be true because they sound too crazy it's all stupid nonsense can't possibly be
17:34
true but that's just assumed you have to go test your assumptions that's the
17:41
essence of science Dogma number nine is that metaphysics is speculative nonsense
17:51
and a corollary that document number 10
17:57
is that science and math doesn't need metaphysics you can just do science and
18:03
math metaphysics free because metaphysics takes us into the field of philosophy and you know philosophy we
18:08
know how philosophy works you can just sit around on your armchair and do philosophy all day long but how do you
18:14
really know if philosophy is true and we know that people throughout history have had all sorts of crazy philosophies but
18:20
none of that stuff really affects science and math math and science are hard-nosed activities whereas metaphysics and
18:27
philosophy well that's that's very speculative and it's psychological and it's prone to errors and you know you
18:33
can't really make a logical proof for some metaphysical idea whereas in math
18:39
and science you can you can prove things definitively so that also turns out to
18:47
actually be a dogma because actually you cannot do science or math without
18:52
metaphysics and you can discover that if you just question your assumptions the
18:59
problem with all these assumptions is that they're made unconsciously you make them but you don't know that you've made
19:05
them and it actually takes a lot of work and thinking and contemplating and experiencing the world from different
19:11
perspectives to start to see and suss out your assumptions and of course if
19:17
you're part of a university or academic setting if you're like doing a graduate
19:22
program or even your undergrad whatever you know your professors they don't haul
19:29
out these assumptions because these assumptions constitute the paradigm or the culture that you're working in this
19:36
is all just part of the package when you go and you sign up for university they
19:41
don't question this stuff even though you would think that as a university you know what should be the highest ideal
19:47
and aspiration of a university it should be open-minded free thought and the
19:53
questioning of everything well it turns out that actually there are specific things which the university system
19:59
doesn't question which is precisely those assumptions on which the University that was founded and why doesn't it
20:06
question these things well of course precisely because if it did it would undermine itself it would expose its own
20:16
internal contradiction and of course we wouldn't want that would we
20:22
so we're gonna dig into this in a lot of detail here but let's start with some
20:28
history to really lay the the the historical backdrop for girdle's
20:33
incredible discoveries because it's hard to really appreciate that unless you put it into the historical context so let's
20:42
rewind about a hundred years ago into the era where logical positivism was the
20:49
the fad and the rage in all of Western intellectual tradition logical
20:54
positivism is this sort of movement that happened within philosophy within
21:00
science and within mathematics which was
21:06
an attempt to get rid of metaphysics and philosophy from science and for
21:13
mathematics so there were key leading figures in this movement like Carnap
21:19
slick Neurath vic and stein russell whitehead and David Hilbert and many
21:28
many others scientists and philosophers and and academics signed on board to this logical positivism and their idea
21:35
was that we need to make science more hard-nosed make it really objective make
21:43
it completely indisputable and if we do that then we're gonna
21:49
complete the entire enterprise of science and of mathematics and of logic we're gonna formalize everything we're
21:56
gonna eliminate every single shred of subjectivity intuition and psychology and philosophy from science and for math
22:06
that was their great idea that's what they tried to do so these guys were
22:13
serious scientists and philosophers and some of them were serious logicians and mathematicians and they worked really
22:18
hard to to succeed in this logical positivist agenda so their aim was
22:29
basically to boil all of truth down to
22:34
expressions of language what they believed was that all genuine knowledge
22:39
if we ask ourselves what is knowledge all genuine knowledge is really just
22:46
about taking nature and expressing it in
22:53
a single common language to all the sciences
22:59
so that science basically boils down to statements of fact about the world and
23:06
that's how most people think about science if you take a a guy off the street and ask him what's science he'll
23:11
say well it's just just a collection of true statements about the world you can
23:17
ask for example is snow white and the answer is either yes or no snow is white
23:24
or no snow is not white is snow black you would say false and so that would be a scientific statement and so what the
23:31
logical positivist wanted to do is they just want it to boil science down to this kind of very kind of like simple
23:39
cut-and-dry atomic process or you can just boil and reduce everything down all the complexity down to these little
23:44
atomic parts and for them the idea was that all of science basically it's done
23:50
with language so everything can be broken down into little propositions within language and language itself can
23:57
be sort of simplified and boiled down from complicated language and in fact you could take all of natural languages
24:03
English and all the statements that we make within English or any natural language and you can boil that down you
24:09
can formalize it down into logical statements so logic is a sort of
24:14
language and so you can you can take some wishy-washy sentence in English and
24:21
you can boil it down to a logical statement and so in theory should be possible to do that with every piece of
24:28
knowledge we have until we know exactly what language is saying and so what they thought is they thought that a lot of
24:33
the confusion that happened in philosophy for the last 2,000 years was was people abusing language misusing
24:42
language talking about terms which they didn't clearly define they didn't really understand what they were talking about
24:47
and so people and different philosophers and theorists when they talked about an atom or or a object or God or they
24:55
talked about the self where they talked about mind or body you know all these concepts they didn't really know what they were talking about because these
25:01
are very kind of fuzzy abstract terms what we got to do is we got to define
25:06
our terms very carefully the way that a logician would and then we can we can make a real simple sense out of all of reality
25:14
and they believed that this was possible to do with mathematics as well they
25:20
wanted to boil mathematics down to logic this particular Enterprise was called
25:26
logis ism it was the idea that logic
25:34
it's that that mathematics itself wise mathematics true for example how do you
25:40
know that one plus one equals two what is the truth of that relying upon how do
25:45
you justify mathematics what they thought is that you can boil it down to logic mathematical truths are really
25:51
just logical truths and so they they went on this on this enterprise to try
25:57
to boil mathematical truths down to logic and they basically thought that all of this can be formalized into a
26:04
system of equations and if they succeeded in doing that then their idea
26:09
was that well we don't need metaphysics anymore we don't need philosophy you don't need speculation all of that is just meaningless fuzzy talk when we've
26:18
got our equations our equations explain everything and then math and science
26:24
really become the only valid kind of knowledge and everything else is just fuzzy delusional or some sort of wishful
26:32
thinking New Age type of stuff and so the logical positivists were really
26:37
adamant about verifiability which means
26:43
that if you're gonna make a claim about the world and you think that it's true
26:48
that means your claim must be tested and it must be testable so if you make a
26:53
claim about the world which cannot be tested under any circumstances that means that really you're not making any
27:01
legitimate claim about the world at all what you're doing is you're just engaging in metaphysics and just speculation and there was a lot of that
27:08
that happened in philosophy for for hundreds of years so in a sense you can you can understand where they were coming from they were tired they were
27:15
sick and tired of people making these sort of arguments like you could say well what makes the moon orbit around
27:22
the the earth and people say well it might be gravity
27:27
and then some religious person might say well it's not gravity it's angels there are invisible angels which help keep the
27:35
moon in place but then a scientific person would say well but angels what is this concept of an angel holding the
27:40
moon in place how do we make sense of this can we test this and of course you try to test it and you realize well you
27:46
can't test it and you can ask the the religious person well can we see these angels and he'll say no angels are
27:53
invisible and then he'll say well can we feel them they do they register on our instruments and the religious person
27:58
will keep saying no no no you can't you can't measure them at all so to the logical positivists this started to
28:04
smell like because now they want to say well if you can't actually verify a statement about the world that
28:11
means you're just speculating you see you're just playing mind games so they
28:16
were big on verifiability they were very big on pragmatism they don't want just
28:22
speculative theories and ideas what they want is they want a pragmatic statement about the world which can be tested and
28:29
you can do something with it and all the other speculation the theory that's not
28:34
important that doesn't belong within the domain of science and that really what science is
28:42
is science is not metaphysics science doesn't really tell you what the world is science simply tells you the
28:50
equations governing nature and those equations are all that there really is that's sort of what pragmatism means
28:56
it's all about how do we manipulate nature and beyond that there's nothing more to say
29:02
they were also into reductionism they believed that all things can be reduced down to their atomic fragments so you
29:11
might ask them what is color what is consciousness what is love what are emotions what is an animal and they will
29:19
say well there are no such things all of it just boils down to atoms there's no such thing as a dog it's just atoms
29:24
there's no such thing as love and emotions and conscious they're just atoms and of course logical positivism worked
29:33
really well with atheism and materialism so materialism atheism and and this logical positive all sort of came
29:40
together and this sort of created a sort of paradigm in which science was done back in the early 1900s
29:48
this really started to flower in the early 1900s and lasted for about 20 or 30 years in the 1930s or so until
29:56
ultimately logical positivism got debunked by by girdle and and a few
30:05
other theorists so there was a particular man who started off this this
30:12
this enterprise of logis ism called Gottlob Frege ii he was a brilliant
30:18
logician and he devoted his entire life to this enterprise of logis ism and he
30:25
worked with set theory and he was trying to use set theory to basically create a
30:33
foundation a logical foundation for all of mathematics he wanted to find a small
30:40
handful of axioms which he could use to create the foundation for all arithmetic
30:48
so for free gay he was asking a very basic sort of philosophical question about math and specifically about
30:55
arithmetic which is like the most basic form of math the stuff they teach you in in first grade he wanted to know and he
31:03
wanted to to completely rigorously prove that all arithmetic 'el truths are true
31:12
and that this should be proven and not just intuited but rigorously proven and
31:19
his whole agenda was to get rid of intuition from within mathematics he
31:24
thought that intuition was like a fudge factor within mathematics which introduced the sort of fuzzy human
31:30
element into what should otherwise be a very hard-nosed rigid system it should
31:35
be cold and heartless not intuitive so he went about dedicating his whole
31:43
life to this process he came up with all his axioms he did all these proofs and finally he figured it out how to do this
31:50
and he wrote his book and he's just about to publish the book the book is actually in the printing presses it's
31:55
being printed and he thinks he's found the logical foundation for all
32:01
arithmetic until his hopes are shattered by a discovery from a fellow logician
32:10
Bertrand Russell famous mathematician logician who discovered and showed to
32:17
frag a that there's a paradox at the very heart of his entire scheme and this
32:25
was called Russell's paradox and so freddie was working with set theory and
32:30
I'm not going to get into all the weeds there that we can get into about set theory but set theory is just in a very
32:36
simplistic explanation all it is is just you're you're grouping objects into sets so if you have one object that's one set
32:42
you can have two objects that's the second set and you just have sets and so basically mathematics boils down to to
32:47
sort of manipulating these sets and seeing the interrelationships between all these different sets but it's not
32:54
quite so simple because there's something deeply paradoxical at the very
33:00
heart of this entire enterprise of trying to boil down reality to simple
33:05
equations and that is Russell's paradox
33:10
Russell's paradox is stated as such Russell basically said what if we find a
33:18
set within set theory that is the set of
33:24
all possible sets not containing itself and what this leads to is this leads to
33:32
a sort of strange loop or sort of contradiction where set theory contradicts itself because if you find
33:38
the set of all possible sets that doesn't contain itself on the one hand
33:44
it would it would seem like you could find such a set but if you did then that set what negate itself and if you
33:51
couldn't find a set then that set must exist so it's a sort of odd paradox that happens where at the
33:59
same time it must exist but it can't exist and if it can't exist then it must
34:04
exist and this brought frege's entire program to a halt and he got very
34:13
depressed about this for a gated but to his credit he was honest about he admitted that yes it actually is not
34:19
possible to boil down arithmetic to logic and to these simple set of axioms
34:26
because of these inherent contradictions which exist in addition to fray GAE
34:32
there was a man by name of David Hilbert who was also a logician and mathematician who embarked on what's
34:40
called Hilbert's program and Hilbert's program was very similar to frege's he
34:45
was trying to ground all existing theories into a finite complete set of axioms and so he was working on this
34:54
problem at the same time and Hilbert's program was derailed by Georg Cantor and
35:02
Garret Cantor is the guy who made some groundbreaking discoveries about
35:08
transfinite numbers he discovered that there are different orders of infinity within logic and within mathematics and
35:15
in fact that there are an infinite number of sizes of infinity and he also discovered the absolute infinite set
35:23
which is sort of like the set of all possible infinite degrees of infinity
35:28
that's the absolute and he called that God he was a religious man I talked about Georg Cantor in more detail in my
35:34
episode absolute infinity part to understanding absolute infinity part two so I talked about his Baxter it's very
35:42
fascinating so if you want to learn more about him go check that out I won't be covering it any more depth here now I
35:48
want to talk now about a Kurt durdle because Kurt girdle and also a guy by the name of alfred tarski both of them
35:55
logicians they made a couple of critical contributions which completely derailed
36:03
all of these efforts at logis ISM and ultimately at logical positivism and so
36:10
this is what we are what what is the heart of this conversation that we're
36:15
having here so what is it that girdle and alfred tarski proved they came up
36:22
with a couple of theories girdle came up with two incompleteness theories tarski came up with one undecidability theorem
36:29
they're quite technical they're dozens of pages long I'm not gonna actually go into the full details of that here but
36:35
let me give you a high-level explanation of of girls and completeness theorem so
36:43
basically what girdle was able to accomplish is he was able to take a
36:51
logical system and he was able to say okay so here are our axioms in this
36:57
system in theory we should be able to take these axioms and we should be able to to use them to make any kind of proof
37:04
of anything that's true within the system of for example arithmetic so if
37:10
we try to do that there's a special case scenario like what Bertrand Russell
37:17
discovered is that we can actually use these axioms in a sort of tricky manner to actually create a statement within
37:24
the entire logical scheme which will contradict itself due to self reference
37:30
and so what girdle was able to prove is that if a system is sufficiently complex
37:39
enough that it's able to reflect on itself or otherwise speak about itself
37:45
for example in the English language the English language is rich enough of a language that I can speak about myself
37:52
using the English language so in a sense what I'm doing is I'm going meta I'm
37:57
speaking about the fact that I'm speaking you see sort of self-consciousness that's happening here
38:02
this is otherwise known as self reflection or as self reference I can
38:08
speak and reference myself speaking well
38:13
if a language like logic or English or some other system is able to do that
38:20
speak about itself what it can do is it can create a paradox or a contradiction
38:26
because what I can say is I can say the following thing and this is ultimately what girdles and complete center boils
38:32
down to let's make an analogy between logic and English so you can do the same
38:39
thing in logic that you can do in English in English what I can do is I can say the following statement everything I say is a lie
38:49
now notice what that means that's a paradox because if everything I'm saying
38:54
is a lie that means what I'm saying that statement everything I say is a lie it's
39:00
a lie so if it's a lie that means that statement is true but everything I say
39:06
is a lie that means how can it be true that's a contradiction on the other hand
39:12
if I am speaking the truth all the time everything I say is true then how can I
39:18
say the statement everything I say is a lie that is also a contradiction so it's a contradiction from both sides it's a
39:26
contradiction no matter which way you slice it so what girdle was able to show is that
39:31
you can do that within logic itself as well not just English at least if your
39:38
logic is complicated enough that it admits of self reference so what is self
39:43
reference mean in logic it doesn't mean that logic is referencing the self as an ego or as an eye or as a consciousness
39:50
no it just means that logic is able to reference itself so that means your logical scheme or
39:57
system has to be able to speak about its own sentences if the logic can reference
40:03
itself as a logic then what girdle approved is that you can create
40:09
statements within that logic which are true but which cannot be proved using
40:15
that logic and so in essence what is proved is that truth is larger than
40:22
proved ability and this is always true
40:28
this is a pretty remarkable result and girdle had to go through some ingenious
40:35
mental maneuvers to figure out how to actually do this with arithmetic so what
40:43
he was able to do is he was able to come up with this idea called girdle numbering where he was able to to encode
40:52
self reference with the in arithmetic such that arithmetic could reference itself and start to speak about itself
40:59
and therefore he could show that because arithmetic can speak about itself that
41:05
it must ultimately contain more truth in it then can be boiled down to simple
41:12
logical axioms and that was a pretty
41:19
amazing result which means that you cannot boil down arithmetic to a simple
41:27
algorithm that is something that Frey Gaye and David Hilbert were trying to do
41:34
their idea was that arithmetic and all mathematical truths it should be
41:42
possible to come up with a certain algorithm that can just run through every possible possibility and come up
41:48
with all the true statements of arithmetic and if we program a computer
41:54
for example with this algorithm the computer can go through and can calculate every single possible
41:59
mathematical truth that there exists and therefore we have solved the problem of mathematics forever and what girdle's
42:06
proved is that actually you can't do that mathematics is infinite beyond the
42:13
possibility of any algorithm to to figure it out and that therefore
42:20
intuition is a necessary component of all mathematical discovery and in fact
42:29
what girdle proved is that mathematics is technically it's called uncomputable which means that if you had a computer
42:35
that had infinite resources infinite processing power and could run for an
42:41
infinite number of time for trillions of years it would still never be able to
42:46
discover all the truths that are contained within mathematics think about
42:53
that that's deep that's deep I'm not
42:59
just saying that your ordinary home computer couldn't do this or some supercomputer I'm saying imagine a
43:05
computer with infinite resources and it still could not figure out mathematics
43:11
that's how big mathematical truth is you
43:17
can't capture it with language you can't encapsulate it in any kind of formal system with simple axioms and
43:24
rules so another way to think about what
43:31
gertle discovered or proved is that if
43:37
the entire domain of truth is a circle like this then what you can prove is a
43:47
smaller subset of that circle and they are never the same you can never prove
43:55
all that there is that's true the truth always exceed exceeds what's provable if
44:05
self-reference is possible
44:13
so another way to say it is that he proved that if a system is
44:20
complete it cannot be consistent and he also
44:31
proved that the consistency of axioms cannot be proved inside of the system
44:37
you always need to have a meta language to go outside to be able to reflect upon
44:44
the system that you're using if you want to talk about truth and this goes to the
44:55
very core of the dogma that many rationalist have which is they assume that if something is true it must be provable but that's not the case and in
45:08
fact what girdle was able to demonstrate and to prove was that in any logical
45:14
system which is capable of self reference you can create a statement as follows this statement is unprovable and
45:23
that will break the entire scheme this
45:29
is called the girl statement this is sort of the the wrench in the works this
45:35
is also Russell's paradox is a journal statement
45:45
so that's sort of like the strict explanation of what the proof is then there are the philosophical and a
45:51
histological and metaphysical consequences of this which we will talk
45:58
about but what I want to do here is I want to read to you a little bit of from Wikipedia about both the discoveries of
46:05
girdle and about David not David Hilbert but um alfred tarski that really
46:13
precisely explains what they proved because it can be a little bit difficult to sort of explain this in words it's
46:19
good to have a nice rigorous explanation of it so we're gonna go to Wikipedia here so here's what it says girdles and
46:27
completeness theorems published in 1931 showed that Hilbert's program was
46:32
unattainable four key areas of mathematics in his first theorem girdle
46:38
showed that any consistent system with a computable set of axioms is capable of
46:44
expressing it that is capable of expressing arithmetic can never be complete it is possible to construct a
46:51
statement that can be shown to be true but that cannot be derived from the formal rules of the system so what this
47:02
means is that you cannot have a complete
47:08
formalization of of mathematics and really you cannot have a complete
47:14
formalization of anything because if we're talking out the truth the truth is always going to be bigger than the
47:20
system of formal rules that you use to to talk about the truth and then it goes
47:29
on to say quote in his second theorem he showed that such a system could not
47:34
prove its own consistency so it certainly cannot be used to prove the consistency of anything stronger with
47:40
certainty this refuted Hilbert's assumption that a finite istic system
47:46
can be used to prove the consistency of itself and therefore anything else end quote
47:56
so it was assumed that logic can sort of prove itself but then girdle was
48:04
actually able to prove using logic that logic cannot prove itself which if you
48:13
think about is very interesting so what girdle was able to do is he was able to sabotage logic from the inside
48:20
out and what's significant about this result to me and I think to our work
48:25
here is that it's one thing for example to criticize logic from the outside from
48:31
outside the system for example you might have a very logical person and then you might have a religious person the religious person might criticize the
48:37
logical person oh well you're too logical you're too stuck in your head why are you so logical maybe you need to have more faith but of course the
48:44
logical person is not gonna buy that because he's gonna have the position
48:50
that all faith faith is just some some nonsense New Age stuff what we what we need is we need more logic the problem
48:57
with the world is that we're not being logical enough if everybody in the world was just more logical everything would be beautiful so you're not gonna be able
49:05
to convince a logical person who's stuck in his logic that his logic is limited
49:10
using appeals to faith or religion or intuition or other outside stuff but was
49:16
what girdle was able to do is he was able to to to prove to the law to the
49:23
logical person from inside of his own system that his own system is inconsistent that his own logic
49:29
undermines itself logic taken to its ultimate conclusion shows its own limits
49:37
which is a remarkable result and if you think about it it should have been obvious to these logicians that this
49:43
would be the case because after all if you just think about very simplistically
49:49
think about like this if there's a person who murdered somebody and he's on
49:54
trial now the fact that he murdered someone is let's say true he did in that case
50:02
but does that mean you can prove it no
50:08
there's no reason why you would be able to prove it he could have murdered somebody and whether you can prove it or
50:14
not well that depends maybe you have some some video footage on some security
50:20
camera maybe you have some text messages maybe you have some audio maybe you have some circumstantial evidence or whatever
50:26
pointing like you have some footprints or you have some blood splats or whatever maybe you've got that but maybe
50:33
he committed this murder so perfectly that you can't prove it does that mean
50:39
he didn't murder the person no it just means you can't prove it but he still
50:44
murdered him you see so truth is larger than what you can prove that's sort of a
50:49
an analogy that we can make with with a sort of a more human example to bring this down to earth now this seems sort
50:56
of reasonable you would seem like well it would seem like well of course that that that seems like common sense yes
51:02
but logicians didn't get it for a long time they didn't get it many of them still don't really get it because they
51:09
still insist on using rationality and logic to to figure out reality and what
51:15
girdle was showing is the limitations of that now let's move on to alfred tarski
51:22
this is also from Wikipedia and it says alfred tarski zunda findability theorem
51:29
shattered all hopes of reducing reducing mathematics to logic informally the
51:34
theorem states that arithmetic 'el truth cannot be defined in arithmetic so you
51:41
need something beyond arithmetic to define the truths of arithmetic see the
51:49
truths of arithmetic are not merely grounded in the symbols of arithmetic there's sort of a deeper layer or a
51:54
metal layer that you need to appeal to this is my commentary here now
52:05
so what's important about tarski is tarski came after girdle he came out right on the heels of girdle and while
52:14
girdles result was more limited to two specific to a specific logical system
52:20
tar skis result was more general and it became more broadly applied to to
52:26
language and to logic so that's why tarski is significant although really it
52:31
was later shown that girdle also derived the same result that our ski did but he just didn't publish it as as early so
52:41
wikipedia goes on to say the theorem tarski theorem applies more generally to
52:46
any sufficiently strong formal system showing that truth in the standard model of the system cannot be defined within
52:53
the system the undefined ability theorem shows that encoding girdles and coding
53:00
cannot be done for semantic concepts such as truth it shows that no
53:06
sufficiently rich interpreted language can represent its own semantics a
53:12
corollary is that any meta language capable of expressing the semantics of
53:18
the language that is talking about the object language must have expressive power exceeding that of the object
53:24
language the meta language includes primitive notions axioms and rules which
53:30
are absent from the object language so that there are theorems provable in the
53:36
meta language but not provable in the object language end quote
53:42
so maybe that confused you it's a little technical but let me explain what this
53:47
means it's quite simple if you have a language like English I can use that
53:53
language to talk about stuff normally how we use languages we use it just to talk about stuff like people and cars
54:01
and cats and dogs and business and and so forth but the language is also
54:07
capable of talking about itself and that's the meta language see we can use
54:13
English to talk about English and we can use English to talk about letters and I can even say that
54:18
right now I'm speaking words and the word W I mean the word the word word
54:26
starts with a w the word word has four
54:32
letters in it see I'm actually now starting to talk in a self-conscious way
54:38
about the actual language and so to do that I need to appeal something to
54:45
something deeper higher I need to sort of meta language to talk about the language and the same thing with logic
54:52
if you are using logic to just do logical deductions that's fine no
54:58
problem there but if you're trying to use logic to talk about logic itself or
55:05
to talk about the truths that logic is producing you can't do that at the level
55:10
of logic what you need is you need meta logic logic about logic a meta language
55:16
and so what tarski demonstrated is that
55:22
in order to accomplish what frey gay and and hilbert and logical positive we're
55:30
trying to accomplish what they didn't understand is that they need a meta language to accomplish that and you
55:36
might say well okay so Leo so what's the problem so let's have let's create a meta language a meta logic which we can use to talk about logic and so therefore
55:42
we've we've sort of used logic to justify and explain logic but you can't
55:48
do that either because see the system you're using to
55:55
talk about some other system always has a set of primitive notions axioms and rules and assumptions metaphysical
56:02
assumptions which must be made for the system to get up and running in the first place so you can use a metal
56:10
language to talk about the first-order language but you can't use the meta language to
56:18
talk about the meta language so you need a meta meta language to talk about the
56:23
truths of the meta language but then how do you prove the meta meta language you
56:30
need a meta meta meta language and so on to infinity you see you can never escape
56:38
the need for making ungrounded axioms and ungrounded assumptions never ever if
56:47
you're gonna have any kind of system of explaining the world you're always going
56:54
to need primitives primitive things which are just taken on faith which is
57:01
why reason itself is in us inextricably connected to faith reason is not the
57:08
arch enemy of faith as is conventionally assumed but rather you need faith in
57:18
reason you need faith in your reasonable axioms you need faith that reason is
57:24
accurately describing reality if you didn't have that you wouldn't be able to
57:30
use your reason and it's precisely because of that that your reason is
57:36
inconsistent because your reason assumes that everything is just reasonable except of course your very reason is
57:42
unreasonable if reality was perfectly
57:48
reasonable you actually couldn't have reason that's the paradox if the human
57:57
mind was just a machine with no intuitive capacities it could actually
58:04
not have mathematical insights that these mathematicians are having so the
58:10
deep irony here is that these logicians and mathematicians who are making these groundbreaking discoveries within logic
58:16
and mathematics nothing wrong with that but what they're not understanding is
58:22
that they're actually using their intuition they're using and connecting to infinite intelligence to make their
58:28
discoveries they're having creative insights it's not a mechanical process
58:34
it's deep intelligence and this deep intelligence is not formal izybelle into
58:40
a set of algorithms or simple rules the
58:46
way that people assumed the way the logical positivists wanted and the
58:53
deeper metaphysical and epistemic lesson here is that you cannot capture reality
59:02
and encapsulate it into a formal system because reality is infinite and so it
59:08
will always escape any attempt to encapsulate it as it must because
59:17
reality is one thing it is the self the self is capable of self reference and
59:24
when you're capable of self reference this necessarily leads to Kipp paradox into contradiction and this is not a
59:30
problem this is not something that we need to be afraid of or that we need to consider an error or a mistake no that's
59:38
correct that's precisely correct because all of your reasoning is actually
59:44
grounded upon something that's beyond reason existence itself is beyond reason
59:57
because reality and existence itself is groundless and it is a strange loop
1:00:02
because it is itself reality is itself it is the ultimate chicken-and-egg
1:00:07
problem it is the ultimate self-reference problem you are a self
1:00:12
within reality you are the universe looking at itself thinking about itself
1:00:18
reasoning about itself wondering how did I get here what am i doing here what is existence
1:00:24
well what is that that's existence asking itself what is existence and the
1:00:29
deep irony is that existence doesn't actually exist so ironically you're standing here asking what is existence
1:00:36
I am existence asking myself what is existence and is the same as non-existence and so this
1:00:44
is the Ouroboros this is the snake eating its own tail and what girdle showed is that logic is
1:00:50
a little microcosm of the larger
1:00:56
macrocosm of this Ouroboros logic eats
1:01:01
itself by its own tail just like the snake as it must because we have
1:01:12
absolute infinity which is all of reality as a whole but then absolute infinity includes all the minor
1:01:18
infinities as Georg Cantor discovered
1:01:24
every object including logic because logic is a part of reality
1:01:31
he's also infinite and mathematics is also infinite and the chair is infinite
1:01:39
and the dog the cat the tree the bird in the sky it's all infinite all of it is a
1:01:45
different form of infinity and then all of it of course is contained within absolute infinity which is the whole thing given all at once but see you
1:01:52
cannot cut encapsulate reality into any formal system because the formal system is not separate from reality as many
1:02:00
scientists and rationalist like to assume it's a part of it the scientist
1:02:05
is reality science is itself reality so science has to as its doing science
1:02:12
ultimately has to explain itself and for
1:02:18
most of Sciences history science was done simply externally it was like you were just you were just looking at the
1:02:24
world as though you're not connected to the world you're disconnected you're kind of standing outside the universe and you're trying to judge it
1:02:29
objectively but then with quantum mechanics for example and with with
1:02:35
these with these theorems from girdle and from tarski what's what's being
1:02:40
realized that when you go really deeply into your inquiry because science is an inquiry into the nature of reality when
1:02:47
you go really deeply into that inquiry what you discover is that wait a minute if I'm inquiring what is the chair
1:02:52
what is a cat what is a tree what is logic what is science ultimately have to enquire what am i what am i what is
1:02:59
consciousness what is my self and then when when you inquire deeply into that you realize that I am the stuff that I
1:03:07
was looking at I am a part of reality I'm not separate from it and so the subject and object distinction breaks
1:03:13
down it collapses and when that happens then you become the stuff that you were
1:03:19
investigating see you can't just assume
1:03:25
that logic is something separate from you or that logic is separate from intuition or logic is separate from
1:03:31
emotion not at all all of these things must be ultimately interconnected into a unity and that's what non-duality tells
1:03:41
us and so really to fully appreciate
1:03:47
girdle's discovery you have to understand non duality because
1:03:52
ultimately girdle's theorems and tarski theorems they were pointing to non
1:03:57
duality again they cannot actually make
1:04:02
non duality perfectly clear to you because for that you actually need to become non dual you actually need to
1:04:08
have an Enlightenment experience but they were pointing to the fact that there is a truth which is beyond
1:04:15
language beyond logic beyond your mind
1:04:22
so that's the significance now of course they don't teach you any of this in
1:04:28
school when you're taking your physics classes your math classes your logic classes and even in university they
1:04:35
don't teach you this stuff nobody talks about this stuff this is our sort of the hidden stuff the hidden under Melly underbelly the
1:04:41
hidden structures of these scientific and mathematical methods because if you
1:04:49
notice when you were learning mathematics or science or history or whatever very little attention was
1:04:56
actually paid on the process of science on the process of history on the process of logic or math you weren't really
1:05:03
doing metamathematics you weren't doing meta logic you weren't doing meta philosophy you weren't doing meta
1:05:09
physics you weren't doing meta history
1:05:14
you just sort of assumed that you could use history you could use philosophy you
1:05:19
could use science or whatever to just to get your results but the deeper you go and the more you
1:05:27
use those tools eventually have to ask yourself wait a minute what is this tool that I'm using where is it coming from how is the tool connected to myself and
1:05:34
to my own being to my own consciousness and to reality as a whole and when you
1:05:39
do that that's when the self reference problems come up and academia does a
1:05:46
really good job of hiding all these self reference problems because when you
1:05:51
really explore the self reference problem to its ultimate root you discover that there is no separate self
1:06:00
everything is the self and you might
1:06:05
wonder well what's the problem with that well the problem with that is that it destroys all systems it destroys your
1:06:13
ability to encapsulate and to capture reality into a little box which is the
1:06:20
whole premise of science and the whole premise of philosophy and the whole premise of theory and the whole private
1:06:25
premise of modeling and the whole premise of of language of of logical
1:06:32
understanding the whole premise of that is that you can capture it into some kind of system but you can't because the
1:06:39
system is smaller than the whole and the system is a part of the whole and the map is not the territory and now I want
1:06:47
to read you some excerpts of quotes that I've compiled from a collection of
1:06:52
various authors about girdle and his discoveries and also tar skis
1:06:57
discoveries they do a great job of eloquently sort of distilling down all the complexity into into little concise
1:07:06
snippets and metaphors and images that that do a great job of explaining the
1:07:12
significance of this so first we have Douglas Hofstadter and he says quote the
1:07:19
paraphrase of girdle's theorem says that for any record player there are records which it cannot play because they will
1:07:27
cause it's indirect self-destruction and quote I love that image that's the
1:07:34
perfect metaphor for what we're talking about here and you can see how now it starts to connect to non-duality into
1:07:42
self-actualization work so what he's talking about here is a record player so imagine old school records those sort of
1:07:48
photographs which have that needle in that groove record so now imagine if you
1:07:55
could design a record that you can put on that player such that when the needle
1:08:01
went around the circle's there was something encoded in the record that would actually cause that needle to to
1:08:08
vibrate and finally the whole thing was just selfish self implode that would be
1:08:15
the equivalent of what girdle accomplished he found a way to do that using arithmetic and using logic that's
1:08:24
pretty cool and he was able to prove he wasn't just
1:08:29
able to come in he was able to prove that any system which is capable of self
1:08:35
reference will have this Achilles heel that will cause its own self destruction
1:08:42
because that's what self reference must do and of course the thing that he
1:08:49
himself never realized and that that even Douglas Hofstadter really never
1:08:55
fully realized even though they understood this stuff in theory they never actually got to the point where
1:09:01
they realized that actually my own physical existence as a self and as a
1:09:07
mind as a body there is there exists a record so to speak that can be played
1:09:14
inside my mind which will cause my own death think about that there is an idea
1:09:22
let's say the the analogy here's a record for record player and idea for
1:09:27
the mind there exists an idea such that if we feed it into your mind it will destroy you that's pretty amazing
1:09:37
that's pretty amazing you might wonder what would that idea be well it's not
1:09:44
necessarily just as simple as one specific idea rather the way it really works in reality is that there can be
1:09:54
some level or some realization that your mind can reach where it realizes that it
1:10:00
itself never really existed and when it realizes that and it realizes that reality never really existed and then
1:10:06
like it it has a full sort of overarching meta understanding of itself
1:10:12
the entire thing collapses and is seen to be a house of cards and that's
1:10:19
enlightenment pretty cool but also
1:10:25
notice that if such a thing really were possible then ideas are far more
1:10:32
dangerous than most people assume see most people think that all ideas ideas
1:10:37
are just ideas yeah you could read ideas in a book you can hear ideas on TV but it's not like an idea can kill me or can
1:10:45
it could this be why people and minds
1:10:50
are so ideological and they cling to ideas so much have you noticed this how
1:10:58
much Minds cling to ideas you cling to ideas your your family claims to ideas
1:11:03
your friends cling to ideas that's why you argue with them so much people on TV politicians and religious people
1:11:10
scientific people logical people they all clink to ideas they all have pet theories and ideologies why is that
1:11:16
could it be because deep down inside the mind knows that if it if it's not
1:11:23
careful and it explores the wrong ideas eventually it will run into an idea that
1:11:29
will kill it now there's an idea
1:11:36
there's an idea that might be one of the
1:11:46
first ideas in this chain of ideas that will ultimately lead to your self-destruction to even be open to the
1:11:54
possibility that there might exist an idea which will lead to your own self-destruction and to not reject that
1:12:01
idea and to take it seriously that already is a part of this whole
1:12:08
self-destructive sort of ideology see which is precisely why most people would
1:12:14
reject what I'm saying here what I'm saying here is not commonly accepted it's not talked about in mainstream
1:12:20
media it's not talked about in universities nobody talks about this stuff and if they do they're very
1:12:25
careful to make it just an idea so that it's just a theory
1:12:31
enlightenment is just a possibility some philosophy or some some hypothetical
1:12:37
thing but it's never actualized because it's dangerous for the brain it's
1:12:44
dangerous for the mind to take these ideas really seriously that's why when you're sitting and you're doing self
1:12:49
inquiry one of most important things you have to do is you have to you have to take the possibility of eradicating
1:12:56
yourself very seriously because that's what you're doing in self inquiry that's what you're trying to do that's what
1:13:02
you're trying to do with meditation that's what you're trying to do with yoga people sit down they they're doing
1:13:07
this process but they don't really grasp the significance of what they're doing and of course really you can't because
1:13:14
you can't fathom the significance of it until after the self destruction has really started to occur Douglas
1:13:25
Hofstadter also says quote prove ability is a weaker notion than truth and quote
1:13:32
so we've talked about that and my ideas about probability and truth were greatly
1:13:39
shaped by Douglas Hofstadter I really recommend you check out his book girdle assure and Boff where he goes into a lot
1:13:45
of detail in a very beautiful way at the same time it's both technical and
1:13:52
challenging it's one of the most challenging books you'll ever read but also it's is very accessible and it's
1:13:58
written in this very playful and sort of fun and interesting style so if you're nerdy and you want to go really deep on
1:14:04
this topic then I recommend you check it out one of my favorite books of all time it's just a delightful to read it's a
1:14:12
total mindfuck especially when you combine it with the things you have learned if you've been watching
1:14:18
actualised org that takes Earl girdle Escher and Bach and just takes it to the
1:14:23
enth degree cuz Douglas Hofstadter didn't really realize the significance of what he was writing about he never
1:14:29
did even though he wrote about zen and he wrote about enlightenment he still didn't really understand what he was
1:14:35
talking about he was still it was still just a concept it wasn't really actualized so if you're a fan of gertle
1:14:42
Escher and Bach and maybe that's why you stumble upon this episode my piece of
1:14:48
advice to you is that there's something deeper if you love gertle Escher and Bach if you love the work of douglas
1:14:55
hofstadter go deeper go deeper that's just the tip of the iceberg what you're
1:15:01
invited to do here is to actually find that record which will destroy you as
1:15:08
the record player and actually actualize that let's go on to the next quote by
1:15:18
George Gilder he says quote girdle demonstrated that every logical scheme
1:15:23
including mathematics is dependent upon axioms that it cannot prove and that
1:15:29
cannot be reduced to the scheme itself girdle was reportedly concerned that he
1:15:34
might have inadvertently proved the existence of God a faux pas in his Viennese and Princeton circle
1:15:41
end quote the Viennese in Princeton
1:15:46
circle that they're talking about in this quote is the logical positivists they were otherwise known as the vienna
1:15:53
circle so why did girdle think that he
1:16:00
proved the existence of God perhaps well because he saw the the larger
1:16:07
consequences here he saw that reality is such a thing that you can't ever
1:16:13
encapsulate it and what does that mean reality is that means it's infinity the
1:16:22
next code is from Perry Marshall and he says quote in 1931 this young Austrian
1:16:29
mathematician Kurt girdle published a paper that once and for all proved that a single theory of
1:16:35
everything is actually impossible end quote
1:16:45
people have been trying to come up with theories of everything for a long time and I'm sure that there are people
1:16:53
sitting in universities all around the world today working really hard dedicating their entire careers to
1:17:01
finding a theory of everything and they will never succeed because what they
1:17:07
don't understand is is that everything is infinite what theory are you gonna
1:17:12
come up with that's infinite your theory is never gonna be infinite your theory is always
1:17:19
finite so you're always gonna fail your theory of everything will actually not
1:17:24
be everything your theory of everything is is an oxymoron it's a contradiction in of itself a theory is not everything
1:17:31
you can't have a theory of everything you can have a theory which is something but it's not everything or you can have
1:17:37
everything but you can't have both because everything is not a theory everything is if everything was a theory
1:17:44
that means this would be a theory right here but it's not this is not a theory this is what we call reality the gist
1:17:52
between theory and realities precisely that theory is not all of reality that's
1:17:57
why the idea of a theory is useful because it's more limited than reality because reality is too much it's too
1:18:05
much so we subdivided into components do
1:18:11
you want a theory of everything I can give it to you right now this is about as simple as a theory of everything
1:18:17
we'll ever get that's it it's one symbol
1:18:25
just draw the infinity symbol and that's everything that's the closest theory of
1:18:30
everything yet it's still not really everything it's a concept it's just a theory but you know what come up with a
1:18:38
better theory everything that infinity that's what it is
1:18:44
you don't need complex complex equation mathematics and you don't need to do anything just infinity that's it
1:18:50
but of course that doesn't satisfy the scientist because the scientist can't build a career off of off of infinity
1:19:00
well he can but to build a scientific career off of infinity what you have to do is you have to dedicate your whole
1:19:07
life to subdividing and fragmenting and atomizing infinity forever and that's
1:19:12
what scientists have done see scientists are very clever people they have invented a career for themselves which will never ever end scientists will be
1:19:20
in business for a trillion years doing science subdividing infinity into infinite number of formulas over and
1:19:28
over and over again and that's that's what they're gonna do and their job will never end and see in a sense to realize
1:19:36
that everything is just infinity well it's too simple it's so simple you can't really build a career around it you
1:19:45
can't really write a book about it I mean people do people try people still sell many books that car totally wrote
1:19:51
wrote and sold millions of books based on based on infinity but uh but you know
1:19:58
if you really want to be truthful about it there's nothing you can say it's just infinity that's it
1:20:05
this next quote is by John Barrow he says quote as with geometries
1:20:12
so with logics there are an infinite number of consistent schemes of logical
1:20:17
reasoning that can be constructed there is no such thing as an absolute truth in
1:20:22
logic and mathematics the best one can do is talk about the truth of statements
1:20:28
given a set of rules of reasoning it is quite possible to have statements that are true in one logical system but false
1:20:34
in another endquote this is very consequential because that
1:20:41
myth of reasoning that we've talked about in the in the very beginning that
1:20:46
mainstream myth of logic well it assumes that there's only one logic that there's
1:20:52
only one way to reason but actually that's not true at all if you go to graduate school in philosophy or within
1:21:00
logic or within mathematics you will quickly discover that there are dozens
1:21:06
and hundreds of different logical systems and that all of these different
1:21:11
systems have their own sets of axioms their own rules and some of these logics are very counter intuitive and twisted
1:21:17
and not like normal logic and so you
1:21:23
might ask well which logical system is the right one but of course there isn't one because your logical system is taken
1:21:32
on faith which logic you use which axiom constitutes your logic every logical
1:21:38
system needs to have a set of axioms well those are arbitrary you just choose them and then it becomes an empirical
1:21:47
question whether your logical system will correspond to reality or to the physical universe maybe it
1:21:53
will maybe it won't maybe in in quantum mechanics it'll work but in everyday life it won't work or vice-versa
1:21:59
for example ordinary logic that we traditionally call logic that we use
1:22:05
just around everyday life you know we could say well I saw an animal on the
1:22:11
road and all and then I can ask you well was it a cat or was it a dog
1:22:17
and you can say it was both but of course that doesn't work in everyday
1:22:22
logic you can't have a cat and a dog in one it was either a cat or a dog or it
1:22:28
was neither but it can't be both if it was just one animal but then see if we
1:22:36
try to take this logic and we start to apply it for example to quantum mechanics to light we can ask a light
1:22:41
well is light a wave or is it a particle and you might think if you're trying to
1:22:46
apply ordinary logic of cats and dogs to light and two particles and waves you
1:22:51
might say well he's either gonna be a particle or a wave can't be both but the answer turns out that it's both or maybe
1:22:58
that it's neither see but that had to be
1:23:05
empirically tested and many people when they first saw those experiments they didn't want to believe it took a lot of
1:23:12
work of genius people to really to square that circle you see so you can't
1:23:18
really rely on rationale in your logic because there's actually an infinite number of logical systems that you could create so which one are you going to use
1:23:25
how are you going to determine which logical system is the right one to apply in which situation are you going to use
1:23:31
logic to determine that no you can't you see because that's just a recursion of the problem
1:23:39
you might say well there's a meadow logic okay but then there's an infant number of meta logics which meta logy
1:23:44
are gonna use how are you gonna determine that well by using a meta meta logic how many meta logics are you gonna have
1:23:50
how many men a meta meta meta logics are you gonna have where does it end it doesn't end it can't end because it's
1:23:56
infinite even logic itself is infinite even logic itself can't confine itself
1:24:04
to one set of axioms you see logic itself is very diverse it's so diverse
1:24:10
that you can't even control it it spills out that's the key feature of realities
1:24:20
that always spills out that's the key feature of infinity it has no end it has no boundary it just kind of keeps going
1:24:27
and going and going and going here's another quote by John Barrow I love this
1:24:34
one quote if a religion is defined as a system of ideas that contains unprovable
1:24:41
statements then gertle taught us that mathematics is not only a religion it is
1:24:46
the only religion that can prove itself to be one and quote I love that that is
1:24:56
the delicious irony the poetic justice if you will of rational people
1:25:03
criticizing religious people for believing in unprovable things well
1:25:09
logic itself is unprovable so who are you criticizing it's the pot kettle
1:25:14
calling the kettle black that criticism just doesn't work if you are aware of
1:25:21
what your own system is see the only way that a rationalist can really criticize a religious person is by not being aware
1:25:27
of his own internal self contradictions which is precisely why rational people like to debate religious people because
1:25:33
when they're debating religious people they can just attack outwardly but they're not really looking and self reflecting inwardly to self-reflect you
1:25:40
have to just be silent you can't be in a debate you can't be arguing you can't be discussing you have to actually be
1:25:46
silent and turn inwards and see your own inherent self contradictions
1:25:54
now I want to talk about more I want to talk more about girdles a man because he
1:25:59
he's a very interesting figure and the reason I want to do this is important
1:26:05
strategic reason because see rational people here will listen to what I'm saying and then they will they will come
1:26:12
up with a sneaky little objection they'll say AHA leo but but girdles ideas you know girdle was just a logician all he cared about was just
1:26:19
formal mathematics it wasn't philosophical there's nothing philosophical or metaphysical or
1:26:25
epistemological or theological or spiritual or non dual about any of girdles work you're projecting that on
1:26:31
to girdle that's what they'll tell me and they'll say Oh leo this is just like with quantum mechanics you know people all sorts of New Age
1:26:38
people love to use quantum mechanics to justify their religious beliefs and all their spiritual nonsense but all of that
1:26:44
is just it's not really correct and this is where I need to again I need
1:26:50
to use the evidence against you I need to use girdle against you in this case because your mind is being tricky it's
1:26:57
being sneaky you're not letting yourself actually experience the the full
1:27:03
ramifications here you're wrong so for this we go to girdles biographer Hao
1:27:10
Wang he was a Chinese professor who interacted with girdle throughout his
1:27:15
life and he wrote a book sort of by a biography of girdle and girdles ideas
1:27:21
and girls philosophy so I'm gonna quote to you from this book and here's a
1:27:27
couple of key things that are made very clear in this book I was quite surprised reading this firstly it's revealed that
1:27:36
girdle was first and foremost a philosopher not a mathematician not a
1:27:41
logician but a philosopher he cared deeply about metaphysics girdle was not
1:27:48
a realist or a materialist he was a plate inist or an idealist and he was
1:27:55
really resonating with Leibniz his philosophy and with who Cyril and
1:28:00
liveness of course was a famous tidy list and also he was a of a very adamant believer in God and
1:28:07
his philosophy and his metaphysics and his pista mala JEE all sort of revolve around God and who Cyril was sort of the
1:28:15
father of phenomenology which is the study of first-person experiences so
1:28:20
what that tells you is that girdle was resonating with these rather than with the logical positivists girdle believed
1:28:26
in a personal God girdle in fact invented logical proofs for the
1:28:32
existence of God I'm not saying those proofs are valid but I'm saying he did
1:28:37
attempt it so that just kind of shows you where he's coming from and the thing
1:28:46
that girdle was most interested in in his life is creating a complete philosophy of reality he wants to
1:28:54
understand what the whole universe was what is the connection between
1:28:59
metaphysics and epistemology and between logic and mathematics he want to understand everything he wanted the big
1:29:06
picture that was his goal but he never succeeded in completing his philosophy
1:29:11
even though he had some of these great breakthroughs within within the field of logic and mathematics so here's some
1:29:19
quotes from from the biography quote when girdle was about four he was
1:29:27
nicknamed mr. Y by family and friends because he always wanted to get to the
1:29:32
bottom of things with his intensive questioning end quote
1:29:38
that kind of reminds me of myself also quote I single out the quest for a
1:29:45
worldview as girdle's central goal his aim in life was to make the greatest possible contribution that he could to
1:29:52
the ideal of finding and justifying the correct and true worldview and quote you
1:29:59
see so girdle was not just a technical mathematical or logical hack
1:30:06
he wanted to understand the full ramifications of of what's going on with
1:30:12
mathematics and with logic also quote girdles interest was less in physics
1:30:19
itself than in his philosophical foundations and significance and quote
1:30:24
and also quote girdle told me that his
1:30:29
general philosophical theory is a life Nietzschean mana dalla G with the
1:30:37
central monad being God although he also stressed that liveness had not worked
1:30:43
out the theory end quote so if you're not familiar with the philosophy and
1:30:49
metaphysics of live Nets and this idea of monads or mana dalla G it's a little
1:30:54
bit arcane but basically liveness had this metaphysical idea that reality was
1:31:01
not composed of particles or atoms but these things called monads and this was
1:31:07
perhaps the earliest idea for a holographic universe these monads were
1:31:12
little Holograms so what a monad was was just a particle but this particle
1:31:17
contained inside of it all the other particles sort of like a reflection of
1:31:24
them and so there were many of these monads but every monad contained inside
1:31:30
of it all the other monads also sort of a strange loop and that that's
1:31:35
ultimately what God was is that God was this monad sort of like a singularity so
1:31:42
it's a little bit wonky the details of his of his of his theory were a little
1:31:48
bit wonky I wouldn't go and buy into all of it but I'm just saying that Leibniz was onto something there because he intuitively
1:31:54
sensed that that there's something more to the universe than just plain stupid
1:31:59
materialism and so did girdle they just weren't really able to to
1:32:07
fully articulate it because they were still operating on a level of duality they were trying to understand non
1:32:14
duality using duality and so they never quite succeeded here are a few quotes
1:32:20
from the biography from girdle himself quote the plate mystic view is the only
1:32:28
one tenable thereby I mean the view that mathematics is describing a non sensual
1:32:34
reality which exists independently both of the axe and the dispositions of the
1:32:39
human mind and is only perceived and probably perceived very incompletely by the human mind end quote so when we
1:32:49
say Platonism what that means is Plato's metaphysics and Plato's metaphysics was
1:32:56
not material but more idealistic so what Plato believed is that these sense perceptions that we see here the objects
1:33:02
cars trees dogs and cats and people that this isn't what's really true about reality what's true is the ideas the
1:33:08
concepts the forms these abstract entities for example what's more true
1:33:13
for Plato is the idea of a dog in the abstract rather than a dog in particular
1:33:21
now that's a bit weird and I'm not saying that that's the right way to look at reality he was still looking at
1:33:27
reality very conceptually and that's a problem and that same problem basically also then got passed out to girdle which
1:33:34
is why girdle had his problems because he was still not recognizing the distinction between direct experience and concepts but nevertheless what
1:33:42
girdle was sort of thinking was that reality is is mathematical
1:33:51
that's not correct quite correct but he was still basically thinking that what's most real about reality is the higher
1:33:59
level sort of like the higher spiritual levels that the mind can reach only
1:34:06
occasionally and only get little glimpses of not this physical gross reality so he sort of believed in a
1:34:13
subtle reality and he thought that that's what he was accessing when he was doing these proofs and that's why you
1:34:18
need intuition is to access that and that's why you can't just use a mechanical process because the
1:34:23
mechanical process at this gross physical level you need something that actually reaches out into the subtle
1:34:29
spiritual level from which insights come and those insights are what the
1:34:34
mathematicians are using to to really power their work he also said quote it was the anti
1:34:43
platonic prejudice which prevented people from getting my results this fact is the clear proof that the prejudice is
1:34:50
a mistake and quote so there he's specifically addressing the question of
1:34:55
why wasn't girls incompleteness theorem discovered earlier
1:35:01
and the reason is is because people assume that everything is just mechanistic but because girdle didn't
1:35:08
assume that reality and math was mechanistic because he intuited that
1:35:13
there was an important component and role for intuition to play because he
1:35:21
was a plate inist that because that he was able to derive his results he also
1:35:28
said quote you cannot understand what mathematics is without understanding knowledge in general and you cannot
1:35:35
understand what knowledge is without understanding the world in general end
1:35:40
quote so see here he's he's saying that you can't just understand all these subjects
1:35:47
in isolation you can't just be a mathematician and think that you're gonna understand mathematics without
1:35:53
understanding knowledge epistemology or metaphysics or the world see because
1:36:00
it's all interconnected you can't assume that your little field is a separate little bubble that lives off by itself
1:36:06
that assumption doesn't hold
1:36:11
he also said quote when I entered the field of logic it was 50% philosophy and
1:36:17
50% mathematics it is now 99% mathematics and 1% philosophy even the
1:36:24
1% is bad philosophy I doubt whether there is really any clear philosophy in the models of modal logic and quote so
1:36:32
here he's criticizing what's been happening over the last hundred years in academia academia has become less and
1:36:40
less philosophical less concerned about metaphysics less concerned about epistemology and just more concerned
1:36:46
about getting the right result because science and academia has just become the
1:36:53
quantification of everything if you can quantify something if you can model it
1:36:59
and you can get the right results and then you could just be very pragmatic about application of your scientific
1:37:06
formulas to make predictions about the future then that's it you're done
1:37:11
that's what modern science sort of works like it's lost that deep philosophical
1:37:16
connection that it used to have and asked in large part because the logical positivists even though they were ultimately debunked and disproven and
1:37:23
logical positivism has largely fallen out of favor people who study this stuff know that logical positivism is is a
1:37:29
load of it's it's completely inconsistent but nevertheless this has
1:37:35
sort of permeated the culture and has just sort of become part of the scientific and rationalist paradigm and
1:37:41
the materialist paradigm which operates at a much deeper level than then even
1:37:47
most scientists are able to fathom it's just part of the culture it's way beyond
1:37:52
you you're just programmed with it and now you know Goerdeler was already
1:37:57
seeing that starting to happen in his time and he didn't like that because he cared about the philosophy of it he
1:38:05
didn't think philosophy was nonsense she also said quote the answer to the
1:38:12
question what am I would then be that I am something which is of itself has no
1:38:18
properties at all rather like a clothes hanger on which one may hang any garment
1:38:23
one wishes and quote so see even girdled
1:38:29
was starting to understand the importance of the question what am i and he was starting to see that really there's no self inside what I am is
1:38:36
nothing but nevertheless he never became enlightened this was still conceptual
1:38:42
for him and then his biographer goes on to say quote more than once he had said
1:38:50
that the present age was not a good one for philosophy end quote and also quote
1:38:57
gourdel was in favor of metaphysics as opposed to positivism and quote by which
1:39:04
he means logical positivism and then girdle himself said quote the discovery
1:39:10
of metaphysical truth will benefit mankind end quote
1:39:15
and then his biographer said quote the superiority of mind is undoubtedly
1:39:22
important for his ontological idealism which sees mind as prior to matter and
1:39:29
quote so ontological idealism is just
1:39:34
the the idea that what's more real is mind over matter
1:39:42
matter is something that happens within mind mind is not something that happens
1:39:47
as a phenomena of matter
1:39:53
he also said quote girdle regarded contemporary science as mistaking the part for the whole and quote that's
1:40:05
exactly right that's exactly what's happening this is the whole problem of confusing the map for the territory the
1:40:11
map is the is the part the territory is the whole the part is a part of the
1:40:19
whole but it's not the whole he also said quote girdle proposed a doctrine
1:40:26
according to which time and change were not objectively real end quote and lastly girl himself said quote
1:40:35
matter will be spiritual eyes when the true theory of physics is found and
1:40:40
quote it's pretty illuminating huh so I
1:40:48
don't want to hear from you rationalist objecting that girdle was just a mathematician or just a logician that
1:40:55
his results have no metaphysical consequences or epistemic consequences or philosophical consequences yes they
1:41:01
do or at the very least he certainly believed they did
1:41:07
maybe it's use not seeing the deeper consequences here because you've been so
1:41:13
blindsided to just look inside you're a little technical sub domain of your field you got to go beyond logic that's
1:41:21
what girls and complete this theorem is telling you so you might wonder what
1:41:27
happened to girdle in the end he was alive during the heyday of quantum
1:41:32
mechanics and of course he was understanding all the stuff that was going on in quantum mechanics and that probably helped them to to make some of
1:41:39
his discoveries and and to see that that reality was was not material but ultimately what happened to girdle was
1:41:45
quite sad at the end of his life he became mentally unstable in fact he was
1:41:52
so paranoid of being poisoned that he would only eat food that his wife
1:41:58
prepared for him when his own wife became ill and she was not able to prepare food for him anymore then he
1:42:05
actually starved to death and he died sixty-five pounds of body
1:42:13
weight that's how much he weighed he died from starvation a rather sad end to
1:42:21
a rather ingenious individual I think there's a lesson to be drawn even from
1:42:26
the way that his life ended just like with quantum mechanics with David Bohm I told you about how David Bohm became
1:42:32
depressed even though he was this brilliant physicist who understood basically non duality he understood in
1:42:38
theory but again he didn't actualize it and that's the same problem I think that
1:42:44
happened with girdle now this is a little bit of speculation on my part I don't really know why he became mentally unstable but I can speculate with some
1:42:53
degree of reasonableness and likelihood that what happened with him is that as
1:42:59
he get older and older and he's hard to face the prospect of death he started to think about well what is my legacy did I
1:43:05
really accomplish what I wanted to in my life with my life purpose and his life purpose was to figure out what the hell is going on why is there reality what
1:43:12
does all of this mean what is what is the metaphysical truth what is the right philosophy and he was never able to
1:43:18
piece it all together because he was trying to do it still coming from the
1:43:23
conceptual domain what he didn't fully understand is that you have to go beyond
1:43:31
logic yes but also beyond concepts beyond ideas beyond mathematics beyond
1:43:36
philosophy beyond language beyond symbols beyond the mind entirely
1:43:43
and he was never really able to do that and I think that that might have driven
1:43:49
him crazy just like with Georg Cantor he
1:43:54
sort of had the same problem as well is that Garret Cantor understood that his
1:44:00
logic and his mathematical proofs were pointing to this transcendental truth that that he called God and that girdle
1:44:07
called God but he was never actually able to actualize it and to see it for
1:44:15
himself and he probably wanted to very badly that was his whole life purpose but he never made it and that's because
1:44:24
ultimately I think he got stuck in reasoning even though he made these
1:44:29
proofs he still got stuck in his own mind and there's a really great quote
1:44:35
that I think hits at the heart of this problem and it is this quote a madman is
1:44:44
not someone who has lost his reason but someone who has lost everything but his reason end quote
1:44:52
by GK Chesterton and I think that's precisely what happened with girdle and
1:44:59
many of these other theorists like Cantor and to a certain extent David
1:45:06
Bohm they were still stuck within reason even though they went post rational and
1:45:13
they knew the limits of reason but it's not enough to know the limits of reason you have to transcend reason which is
1:45:20
another level altogether now let's tackle some objections hmm now let's
1:45:31
tackle some objections but Leo girdle's theorem only
1:45:36
applies to strict formal systems and what you're doing is you're bastardizing it and you're taking it and you're
1:45:43
running with it you're being way too loose and metaphysical well that's
1:45:49
precisely why I wanted to quote to you from his biographer and some of girdle's
1:45:55
quotes from the biography himself so that you can get an insight into the man himself and how he thought hopefully
1:46:03
those quotes have convinced you that he wasn't just strictly a logician
1:46:10
it's not that I'm being too loose and metaphysical it's that actually you're being too rigid and too limited in your
1:46:17
scope which you might think that that's actually a good thing because you're trying to protect science and to protect
1:46:24
knowledge and to protect your web of belief because you want you want it to be strict and you want it to be just
1:46:31
hard-nosed but actually in doing that you actually limit your knowledge you
1:46:38
limit your understanding of the bigger picture you need to allow yourself to start to see the metaphysical and epistemic consequences of this stuff
1:46:44
that's not loosey-goosey that's that's exactly what's necessary otherwise you fall into the trap of logical positivism
1:46:50
or for example in psychology they had a similar movement which was coming from
1:46:58
the same sort of intention to make science overly strict which was
1:47:05
behaviorism and that also didn't pan out very well
1:47:11
it just doesn't explain enough reality is more rich and more complicated and
1:47:17
more nuanced and more interesting and more way more fascinating than just
1:47:23
simple reductionism would lead you to believe so I really encourage you to to
1:47:29
think through these consequences for yourself very deeply and try to see how
1:47:36
your insistence on being rational is actually fragmenting reality and when
1:47:42
you're fragmenting reality you're not seeing the larger whole and to really understand what reality is as a whole
1:47:49
well by definition you're talking about the whole and not some little fragmentary part sure yes strictly
1:47:57
speaking girdle's theorem only applies to some strip little formalism within
1:48:02
logic but you know there's more there's
1:48:09
more realities not just a little fragment logic is not some isolated hermetically sealed field from the rest
1:48:15
of reality logic is occurring inside of your your brain and Union in your mind so that means it's happening to you as a
1:48:22
human being you can't really separate logic from emotions you can't separate the left
1:48:28
brain from the right brain they actually work together and actually when you're doing logic and when you're analyzing
1:48:33
and you're reducing reality and you're fragmenting reality into these conceptual categories that's actually
1:48:40
happening thanks to the fact that you have intuitive capacities and you're actually tapping into unbeknownst to you
1:48:47
infinite intelligence to do that to actually sit down and make sense of a complicated proof to have some deep
1:48:54
insight within some mathematical theorem that requires infinite intelligence you
1:49:00
have to have an aha moment that comes from outside of your ego outside of your
1:49:06
little selfish mind outside of rationalism that's where it comes from and then you use that to actually build
1:49:12
up your rational frameworks start to see
1:49:18
that start to self-reflect as you're doing logic start to notice and observe
1:49:30
and be mindful of yourself doing the logic or doing your reasoning start to
1:49:36
carefully observe the internal processes rather than just using it externally to
1:49:42
solve some sort of problem out in the world or some problem that your professor gave you and then ultimately
1:49:51
if you start to have mystical experiences and you start to glimpse absolute infinity for yourself directly
1:49:56
by going beyond your mind it'll all interconnect in a very beautiful and
1:50:02
profound way for you the other objection here of course is the the perennial one
1:50:09
Leo how is any of this stuff practical what does logic have to do with my personal life
1:50:18
well actually quite a bit a lot more than you would assume because if you
1:50:26
grew up in Western modern 21st century culture then you have grown up with this
1:50:31
myth of rationalism this myth that things can be proven to you in some sort
1:50:38
of airtight way and hopefully many of
1:50:43
these myths have been shattered here
1:50:50
when you're stuck in rationalism that is a very practical thing you are stuck and
1:50:56
it does affect your ability to think creatively it affects your ability to
1:51:04
theorize to do proper philosophy to understand science to be able to open
1:51:11
your mind to new ways of looking at the world and new perspectives this is
1:51:16
extremely important the problem with rationalism is that it it calcifies your
1:51:22
mind it makes your mind rigid and dogmatic it's the exact same problem that religious people have religious
1:51:29
fundamentalists same exact problem when the mind becomes rigid it's not able to
1:51:36
be truly creative it's not really thinking for itself it's not opening
1:51:42
itself up to infinite intelligence it's not opening itself to new diverse perspectives you know here's a very
1:51:49
practical thing I can give you a life changing book about yoga for example and
1:51:55
I can tell you here go take this book go practice it go read it within a year it will completely transform your life the
1:52:02
quality of your life nothing theoretical about it all practices exercises go do
1:52:07
them and if you're a rationalist or you're a scientist or you're an academic or whatever you're not going to be able
1:52:14
to get five pages into this book why not because the paradigm that this
1:52:20
book will be coming from will be so radically different from your rationalist logical materialistic Western but the
1:52:28
paradigm that it's not gonna it's not gonna compute for you you're gonna get
1:52:35
disgusted you're gonna throw this book away you can say oh this is just nothing this is just metaphysics it's just speculation this is just some New Age
1:52:41
stuff look Lea they're talking about chakras and they're talking about out-of-body experience all this this is all nonsense we all know that those are
1:52:51
just hallucinations in the brain we all know that consciousness just happens in the brain that's just nonsense I'm not
1:52:57
gonna do these exercises Leo you want me to waste a year doing these exercises no way see that's how your mind will trick
1:53:05
you and that's very practical you're limiting yourself you're really limiting
1:53:11
yourself not only are you limiting yourself with some of these New Age techniques that are real that can really
1:53:17
benefit you which you poopoo but you
1:53:22
also limit yourself as a theorist and as a thinker to be a genius theorist a
1:53:31
genius scientist a genius mathematician a genius engineer a genius thinker of
1:53:37
any kind to make original genius and valuable contributions to mankind you
1:53:47
need to cultivate a certain kind of intellect not a rationalist
1:53:54
intellect that's not gonna do it that's just gonna make you a technician and a hack you need to cultivate a very open
1:54:02
minded creative intellect where your mind becomes playful and you're able to jump between different perspectives and
1:54:09
look at the world this way and then that way from a new-age perspective from a religious perspective from a scientific
1:54:14
person from illogical all of it you need to be able to jump around comfortably and not to take sides and not to get
1:54:20
offended and not to get emotional not to get attached to any of these perspectives you need to be able to question all your assumptions because
1:54:27
that's the essence of thinking outside the box how do you think outside the box well first of all you have recognized
1:54:32
that you're always in some kind of box when you're thinking that helps and then
1:54:39
you can learn tools and methods and you can do various practices you can do visualization exercises you can do yoga
1:54:44
exercising you do meditation self inquiry phillup philosophical actually you can contemplate the nature of almost
1:54:50
anything and as you do that and you can also self reflect and you can observe your own process you can observe how you
1:54:57
use language how you use logic how I use rationality as you do all this you become more conscious the more conscious
1:55:03
you become the more of a vessel for infinite creative intelligence you become the more you purify yourself the
1:55:11
more you purify your chakras your creativity will just go through the roof if you think you're a good scientist
1:55:18
right now or a good mathematician or a good logician or a good theorist right now man wait till you spend five or ten
1:55:27
years doing these practices and really self actualizing and opening up your mind in the ways that I'm talking about
1:55:33
your your creativity will go to levels that are superhuman your problem is
1:55:39
gonna be that you'd have so much creativity you're not gonna have enough time to actually make all your ideas a
1:55:46
reality there's going to be an overabundance of brilliant ideas an overabundance of a brilliant business
1:55:52
ideas brilliant ways to transform society to improve the world to help yourself to help your family it's gonna
1:55:58
be too much I have so much creativity because my mind is so open and I've been
1:56:06
doing these practices my mind is so creative at this point that it's actually exhausting it's exhausting
1:56:13
because I'm pummeled every week I'm puddled by by so many new ideas that I could follow up on business ideas and
1:56:19
how I could transform the world how I can earn millions of dollars it's just it's too much I don't have enough time
1:56:24
to actualize all that I would need ten lifetimes for it I have to be very selective about that see so this
1:56:31
extremely practical and we're just we're just getting to the to the tip of the iceberg of the practicality of it and I
1:56:37
haven't even mentioned your health for example your psychological health or your your physical health all of that is
1:56:44
affected and if you're a theoretician one of the things you face is you face the danger of depression of getting
1:56:50
stuck and mired in all your concepts because your understanding so much about reality but even though you understand
1:56:56
all this stuff it's just turning into the sort of brain fog you're walking
1:57:02
around with all these concepts but your body isn't really growing along with all
1:57:10
the stuff that's in your head so you're sort of disconnecting yourself from your emotions you're disconnecting yourself from your physical body you're stressed
1:57:16
out you're not able to relax you're not able to be at peace your mind is always in a monkey mind mode you're always
1:57:22
thinking in the future always in the past can't be present see so there are
1:57:28
tons and tons of of practical ramifications here that we haven't even begun to to elucidate the ball but even
1:57:38
though we're wrapping up part one here there's gonna be a part two so stay tuned for part two that will be released
1:57:43
soon and in part two there's still more to talk about I really want to focus on
1:57:50
how Western intellectual tradition actually fears paradox there's a rich
1:57:57
tradition in the West of fearing paradox and actively hiding paradox and I want
1:58:03
to talk about why that's the case why it happens the deep reasons and I want to show you examples of how that works and
1:58:10
I'm gonna show you examples of how in science and in math actually Western rational thinkers have been sweeping
1:58:17
these paradoxes under the rug hiding them from you precisely because they pose some some threats to the entire
1:58:25
establishment of science and rationality and philosophy so stick around for that
1:58:30
that's it for here please click the like button for me go check out actualize org my blog the resources are there life
1:58:37
purpose course book list the forum is there you can ask questions discuss all this stuff and stick with me as your
1:58:47
mind is becoming more open by some of these philosophical topics that I cover
1:58:54
what that will do is that will then make you sort of fertile soil in which seeds
1:59:01
can be planted which can then be nurtured and grown i have already shared
1:59:08
many practices with you which you can start to practice to transform your life in radical ways if if you want something
1:59:15
very practical go to actualize that our own slash start and you will see a list of practices there and lots of videos to
1:59:22
get you started in this process so there's a lot of practical stuff there but also i'll be sharing a lot more
1:59:28
practical stuff practical techniques that you can use in future one of the challenges i have when one of my sort of
1:59:34
missions and visions for use i want to share techniques with you that are so radical that you are not going to be
1:59:41
able to do these techniques if you're operating under the materialist rationalist paradigm so a lot of the
1:59:48
time that I spend shooting these long complex philosophical videos is just to open your mind up because I know how
1:59:55
stuck you are in your mind we to open your mind up first then once we've done that then we can start to introduce
2:00:04
techniques to you and then you'll be more open to those techniques and then as you start to practice those techniques it's gonna create this sort
2:00:12
of positive feedback loop you see because when you have a rigid mind with
2:00:18
rigid theory that prevents you from actually going out there and practicing radical techniques that can transform
2:00:24
your mind but when your mind opens that allows you to now go and explore new
2:00:29
techniques so you go explore those techniques and practices and those in turn reflect back and change your mind
2:00:35
and change your ideology and open your mind even more so as you practice more of these new techniques that opens your
2:00:41
mind more but as your mind opens more you open yourself up to even more powerful and advanced techniques and so
2:00:46
it just creates this positive feedback loop you see so the theory of the practice of course they all feed into
2:00:52
each other there's no difference between theory and practice that's a duality that people use to keep
2:00:58
themselves stuck and all dualities of course by this point you should realize our gonna break down including the one
2:01:04
between theory and practice and as you do more of the practices I
2:01:14
really want you to start doing the practices because if you like the theory
2:01:19
you gotta start doing the practices because if you're just gonna ignore the practices and just listen to the theory
2:01:25
eventually what's gonna happen is that at some point you're gonna get disgusted with the theory because it's gonna start to seem like only all you do is just
2:01:30
talk about theory what's the point well the point is if you're doing your practices the theory I talked about will
2:01:37
deepen your practices and deepen your insights and deepen your understanding
2:01:42
in ways that are gonna be very beautiful and very profound and very enriching for
2:01:50
your entire practice so the theory is sort of like a treat for those people
2:01:56
who are doing the practices but then people who don't do any practices just learn the theory and then they engage in
2:02:02
mental masturbation and they don't take any action well those people are gonna suffer so don't be one of those people
2:02:07
start doing the practices now I've already told you what all the practices are stop asking me what the practices
2:02:13
are you know what the practices are you just don't want to do them cuz you're lazy I know because I I've been there I
2:02:19
know how that works theory is much easier than practice because you can just sit back and read books or just
2:02:24
watch videos for hours on hours on end that's fun and you need a certain amount
2:02:30
of that when you're getting started but then start doing the practices too
2:02:42
you