Thank you for your further views, Dr. Rich. I really appreciate that. Yes, your comments are helping. It is a nice exploration for me since I do recognize Gödel's structural thinking, but also that my positions are not identical to Gödel's (yet that is what I am exploring further).
The real issue is therefore about Gödel's feet, and not just what his brain was stating. I am not able to see his feet in all clarity yet. Did he stand on structural thinking only, or did he stand his structural thinking on his religious beliefs? I hope you see that one can turn Gödel's views therefore 180 degrees upside down, depending on what existed inside Gödel's mind (about his feet).
--
About me, I am not a believer, but I am not afraid to dive into religious structures and use religious words. That may seem two-faced, but I do not see anything wrong there, as long as I am clear about where my feet are standing.
I will always stand with structure. My feet are the most important instrument I have. My brain is just a tool. I will accept anyone else's comment if they show me my feet are not on the ground that should be found underneath my words.
--
For instance, when I agree with Spinoza's God, then I have a foundation in which God can be experienced in the abstract. The example that comes to mind is that God can then be declared equal to Energy. With Energy, we have an abstraction about something we all know is true and real, and yet it is hard to declare what Energy is.
Even physicists can't really put their fingers on it. They have some generic (negative) aspects to present about Energy (it does not get lost). Yet there is also a neutral scientific position about Energy (it's a scientific given). They are hanging mid-space in the scientific realm, but at least their feet are on Energy, even when they cannot say all too much about it.
When asked about Energy, some physicists declare that there is about 68% of dark energy, some 27% of dark matter, and some 5% of energy is then material. I do not dislike it, but this is also more or less what statisticians work with (68% is one standard deviation, 95% is two standard deviations).
If correct, I can explain it and would love for it to be correct. Yet if incorrect, then I explain the outcome as physicists just following the usual rut of statistics and finding the ordinary answer, working their way toward the balancing of things, like with the bell curve. They are then accepting what is normal distribution of energy as the foundation to work with, and that would then warp the truth because they did not start with the actual amount of energy there is in the universe. It would not be physics they work with. They would then have incorporated approaches from a different discipline because... they want to find answers. They are afraid to declare that they cannot know.
Neutrons and protons are not normal energy, and as such it would be awkward to have this 68-27-5 outcome as if everything is based on normal. Something is amiss, and it tells me that not even physicists know how to work with energy at the overall central theme of reality.
Yet, I can stand with Spinoza, not a problem. God is the same as Energy (and not explain anything further but to say that we do have our feet on the ground when we state that God = Energy, and leave it at that).
--
If I want to stand with Gödel's God, then I have no problem there either (if I get Gödel's position right, that is).
It is very simple to see that matter exists in two different formats (with quarks and with electrons), and so we have two realities to deal with in-one, already at the material level. We exist in a complex outcome, not in a simplex origin.
One cannot start out with an original 100% reality that became the subsequent 100% of reality, now with matter, and that second 100% reality then not returning to its original 100% in a jiffy. That subsequent reality staying the subsequent reality for no good reason is structurally real bad, cartoonish.
So, structural thinking already declares for a fact that, when we find a duality at the level of matter, then there will also be an additional duality between matter and the non-material reality. The quality of matter (actually of some of matter) will be self-based (limited in essence) and not based on all energy (no boundaries).
Then, and I am sorry if this is a bit complex, but our choice is:
1. to declare everything God (no distinctions among Energy),
2. to declare just the immaterial forms of energy + electrons God (everything is God, parts of ourselves as well, but not the quark reality of ourselves), or...
3. to declare only the immaterial forms of energy God (God is immaterial, not within us, but God's nose is butting into the material reality nevertheless, a presence).
I do not have a good idea where Gödel stands in this. You may have additional insights to proffer, or acknowledge how we stand short from knowing.
--
Perhaps said too many times already, in essence totally obvious, but God belongs to the religious structures and does not exist in any of the scientific structures. Yet this is important to acknowledge.
Folks using a religious structure and then expecting to cover everything there is to cover, these persons are structurally immature inside their minds.
Folks using a scientific structure and then expecting to cover everything there is to cover, these persons are structurally immature inside their minds.
I hope you see that one cannot use any truthful structure to declare the overall truth, Rich, exactly what Gödel showed. But there is a deeper level that is quite concerning.
Once a person accepts that there is no overall truth at the overall level (other than negative ones and neutral ones), one may still not adjust the structure in which the brain is thinking. This is a very important obstacle to overcome.
Let me say it differently, folks may correctly recognize the fundamental importance of zero, and then incorrectly think they do not need to rearrange the way they are thinking, simply because they think that zero is zero.
That has been my true battle with people, Rich. They say, Um-Hum, I got it, and subsequently the brain does nothing. No change at all.
The egg is still whole. Their brains do no go kablooey and the egg does not break (into two brain hemispheres). They see nothing then indeed as important, but they do not apply that nothing to the structures in which they think. They do not incorporate the separation itself. The egg remains whole. No omelet, even when all accept that we live in the omelet (i.e. the results) and not the original state.
--
When I see scientists and religious people quarrel about who has the right approach to the big picture, then I think neither group knows Gödel's work, neither group knows my work. Their brains are still in the old state (monotheism), but they populated their brains with modern data.
It is the Enlightenment all over. Folks embraced the new data as informing their reality, but power held on to power more effectively than folks realize. Folks are still lining their minds up behind the leader. They are not thinking for themselves.
That means scientifically that they are still inside a singular universe. They make space something that is for them part of the essence, whereas space is really allowing the essence (of Energy) to come out in many, many completely distinct manners (material and immaterial). These folks' brains are still holding on to the egg forged in ancient times (though the true ancients had a better approach).
Thank you for letting me say all this, Rich. I am curious if you have more insights to proffer on Gödel view of God and how that informed him (if he thought his feet were more important, or if he subjected himself to the divine state first).
: - )
