Patrons of the Sacred Art

1. ## Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem

In 1931, young Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible.

Gödel’s discovery was called “The Incompleteness Theorem.”

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:

“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”

More HERE. And other places on the web. Now, if we draw a circle around the web....

2. Originally Posted by Andro
In 1931, young Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible.

Gödel’s discovery was called “The Incompleteness Theorem.”

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:

“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”

More HERE. And other places on the web. Now, if we draw a circle around the web....
The same applies to God. God CANNOT exist by himself as he needs another point of reference to define himself. Thus he subdivided himself by creating matter and spirit and created all Life as a reflection of himself as an 'outside' point of reference. We are definitely God.

3. A mystery cannot be solved, or it would not be a mystery.

I personally enjoy that it is all one big Mystery.

4. Originally Posted by Andro
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:

“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”
Wittgenstein:

3.13 A proposition, therefore, does not actually contain its sense, but does contain the possibility of expressing it. ('The content of a
proposition' means the content of a proposition that has sense.) A proposition contains the form, but not the content, of its sense.

3.332 No proposition can make a statement about itself, because a propositional sign cannot be contained in itself (that is the whole of the 'theory of types').

3.333 The reason why a function cannot be its own argument is that the sign for a function already contains the prototype of its argument, and it cannot contain itself. For let us suppose that the function F(fx) could be its own argument: in that case there would be a proposition 'F(F(fx))', in which the outer function F and the inner function F must have different meanings, since the inner one has the form O(f(x)) and the outer one has the form Y(O(fx)). Only the letter 'F' is common to the two functions, but the letter by itself signifies nothing. This immediately becomes clear if
instead of 'F(Fu)' we write '(do) : F(Ou) . Ou = Fu'. That disposes of Russell's paradox.

6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in it no value exists--and if it did exist, it would have no value. If there is any value that does have value, it must lie outside the whole sphere of what happens and is the case. For all that happens and is the case is accidental. What makes it non-accidental cannot lie within the world, since if it did it would itself be accidental. It must lie outside the world.

6.4321 The facts all contribute only to setting the problem, not to its
solution.

6.44 It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists.

6.45 To view the world sub specie aeterni is to view it as a whole--a limited whole. Feeling the world as a limited whole--it is this that is mystical.

6.52 We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there are then no questions left, and this itself is the answer.

6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem. (Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long period of doubt that the sense of life became clear to them have then been unable to say what constituted that sense?)

6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.

(Wittgenstein's Tractatus, of course)

Then again, Wittgenstein was VERY critical of Gödel (I think they hated each other philosophically)... because he felt that he should have gone further... Somehow thinking that Gödel wanted, as to paraphrase a Spanish proverb, to be "in good terms with God and the Devil".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B...s#Wittgenstein

A VERY interesting source of these ideas comes from Nicholas of Cusa in his "Treaty on the Not-Other", which mostly said something quite similar in the XV century.
Following a neo-Platonic view, Cusa simply said in this treaty that the sense of each thing is always defined by another thing... thus we have a "chain" of things that give a sense to the other.... Each "other" defines the sense of another "other"... but as Wittgenstein and Gödel agreed (and I think they agreed there), the sense of something is never in that something, but in something else. So the definitive sense of "the world" or "the universe" as a whole cannot be "inside" of it.

The "elegant" solution of Cusa was to think of God as an exception... the only "not-other"... and with "not-other" he meant that "God" defines itself and becomes the entity that finishes the "chain"... the "not-other" that has an intrinsic sense and CAN define itself without the need of another other. It is VERY interesting to me how this logic ends up becoming quite similar to the Golden Chain of Homer.

IF you follow these ideas, and I think that you do, then it would be possible to say that Alchemy somehow defies the ideas of Gödel (with Wittgenstein is more complex, probably it actually gives him the credit of arriving to the right idea... that the sense is "mystical" and is "outside" of the Universe... outside of what can be expressed by words/language).

In a nutshell, Cusa and Wittgenstein believed that a TOE must include the "mystical"... that Science can't make a TOE, and the problem is not technological, but epistemological (which gets VERY close to Plato... and quite far from Aristotle*).

*The Aristotelian failure was also heavily criticized by Nietzsche in his "Gay Science" (the idea that to find the ultimate truth we simply have to wait till Science discovers it, because the truth is rational, logical and can be explained by language... though Nietzsche thought that this was a terrible mistake, and so did Wittgenstein and Cusa).

So the interesting thing for me is just one question:

What do we have OUTSIDE of the BIG circle (the Universe)... is there SOMETHING that CAN explain the Circle? IS that "something" possible to be explained or understood? Does that "understanding" of what is OUTSIDE the circle possible to be apprehended by language? Is it apprehended by an experience? By a mystical experience? Can we translate that experience into words?

The answer is in explaining the SENSE of this image:

(We have the circle and someone seeing OUTSIDE the circle... But how he experiences what he sees? Will he be able to explain it? Will he be able to communicate it? Will he be able to rationalize it?).

That's probably the BIGGEST philosophical problem, but I'm with Wittgenstein in it... the BIGGEST philosophical problem is not philosophical at all!

(Blessed be Wittgenstein & Derek Jarman!!!)

5. Originally Posted by zoas23
What do we have OUTSIDE of the BIG circle (the Universe)... is there SOMETHING that CAN explain the Circle? IS that "something" possible to be explained or understood? Does that "understanding" of what is OUTSIDE the circle possible to be apprehended by language? Is it apprehended by an experience? By a mystical experience? Can we translate that experience into words?
It can be explained, understood and experienced... but not with language or words i.e. the logos.

And logos became the "logo".

When a logo (or a brand) is seen it is instantly understood. When you see the McDonalds M you know what it means, what it stands for and what an experience you can have (and probably have had) from participating in the M-logo world. The logo is really a symbol of the All in terms of McDonalds to use a simplified example. IMO.

In this sense there can be a Theory of Everything, problem is it can not be explained with science... only with experience. Although it can "almost" be worked out. I mean you can write a pretty good thesis on McDonalds and document what McDonalds is and feels like etc... but in the end you got to go there to understand what it really is.

Last edited by Awani; 03-13-2017 at 10:29 PM.