http://www.spiegel.de/international/...ents-box-pager
As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.ANZEIGE
But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology.When Gödel died in 1978, he left behind a tantalizing theory based on principles of modal logic -- that a higher being must exist. The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist.
Even at the time, the argument was not exactly a new one. For centuries, many have tried to use this kind of abstract reasoning to prove the possibility or necessity of the existence of God. But the mathematical model composed by Gödel proposed a proof of the idea. Its theorems and axioms -- assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.
Proving God's Existence with a MacBook
That is where Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin's Free University and his colleague, Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna, come in. Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Gödel's proof was correct -- at least on a mathematical level -- by way of higher modal logic. Their initial submission on the arXiv.org research article server is called "Formalization, Mechanization and Automation of Gödel's Proof of God's Existence."
The fact that formalizing such complicated theorems can be left to computers opens up all kinds of possibilities, Benzmüller told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "It's totally amazing that from this argument led by Gödel, all this stuff can be proven automatically in a few seconds or even less on a standard notebook," he said.
The name Gödel may not mean much to some, but among scientists he enjoys a reputation similar to the likes of Albert Einstein -- who was a close friend. Born in 1906 in what was then Austria-Hungary and is now the Czech city of Brno, Gödel later studied in Vienna before moving to the United States after World War II broke out to work at Princeton, where Einstein was also based. The first version of this ontological proof is from notes dated around 1941, but it was not until the early 1970s, when Gödel feared that he might die, that it first became public.
Now Benzmüller hopes that using such a headline-friendly example can help draw attention to the method. "I didn't know it would create such a huge public interest but (Gödel's ontological proof) was definitely a better example than something inaccessible in mathematics or artificial intelligence," the scientist added. "It's a very small, crisp thing, because we are just dealing with six axioms in a little theorem. … There might be other things that use similar logic. Can we develop computer systems to check each single step and make sure they are now right?"
'An Ambitious Expressive Logic'
The scientists, who have been working together since the beginning of the year, believe their work could have many practical applications in areas such as artificial intelligence and the verification of software and hardware.
Benzmüller also pointed out that there are many scientists working on similar subject areas. He himself was inspired to tackle the topic by a book en led "Types, Tableaus and Gödel's God," by Melvin Fitting.The use of computers to reduce the burden on mathematicians is not new, even if it is not welcomed by all in the field. American mathematician Doron Zeilberger has been listing the name Shalosh B. Ekhad on his scientific papers since the 1980s. According to the New York-basedSimons Foundation, the name is actually a pseudonym for the computers he uses to help prove theorems in seconds that previously required page after page of mathematical reasoning. Zeilberger says he gave the computer a human-sounding name "to make a statement that computers should get credit where credit is due." "human-centric bigotry" on the part of mathematicians, he says, has limited progress.
Ultimately, the formalization of Gödel's ontological proof is unlikely to win over many atheists, nor is it likely to comfort true believers, who might argue the idea of a higher power is one that defies logic by definition. For mathematicians looking for ways to break new ground, however, the news could represent an answer to their prayers.
How about that?
And there are those who argue on here against what I've been saying all along, that science methodology, logic, reasoning, intuition, meditation, observable experience, and imagination are getting closer everyday to proving the existence of God!
Who woulda' thought it?
My Macbook doesn't reach that conclusion. Seems like it might be tied to the beliefs of the user.
Gonna need to see physical evidence, not theoretical math equations, tbh....
Everything that is conceived of can be reduced to mathematics.
If I prefer PC does this make me any less holy?
This is true
my goddess is a proof too imho. God created her and sent her to us as a gift
Gotta love when religious people turn to science to disprove science.
Maybe not holy, but containing holes on the other hand ............
I'm not going to ask people to describe how the definition of God was met. I don't expect anyone here to get close to being able to describe that. Instead I will ask if anyone here knows what God was defined as so as to demonstrate that said definition was met so as to prove it's 'existence.'
it is?
That, by far, is the most astute question I've heard on here. According to the authors of the article, Godel did it sometime around 1941.
I am just saying that a definition for god was made and that before people look one way or another on this then they should look to see what that definition is. As I said, I don't think most anyone will understand proving all of the logic that leads to said conclusion but people can probably understand what they contend to have proven.
it. This is what they stated god was:
True, it is what it is. Mathematically, we may never get closer than that.
Basically they said Godel's ontological proof was more understandable than his mathematical even though his math was right on. But for many, philosophy can be much more confusing than math.
Having studied quite a bit of philosophy, I do not buy into the 'beyond our understanding.' It may be complex but unless you start asserting the notion of a priori then it is all verifiable. What is confusing is mystical nonsense that is conflated with philosophy.
I actually like stuff like this. Even if I do not agree with the definition, at least it is an attempt to verify the proof of what they believe. Up until the last 50 years, it used to be such that people felt that God could be reconciled with the observable universe. Kant, Kierkegaard, Descartes, Godel, etc tried to prove their belief by reason instead of emotional wordplay and semantic games. This is the first time in the modern era that I can recall the same being done.
I cannot deny that it isn't interesting. I plan to read more about it if there is indeed more.
Since we pretty much know that most things can be reduced down to their mathematical equivalents, then I am surprised that this is the first time I have learned of Godel's God theorem.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
