Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00150)

On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote:
> >> 
> >> The laws of mathematics are eternal and changeless.  Like the laws of
> >> morality and physics, they can be discovered, but never invented.
> >> 
> >If you can demonstrate this with something other than just an assertion
> >of your belief, you will have refuted Godel's Theorem. While you may take
> >comfort in the belief that the laws of mathematics are "eternal and
> >changeless", no working mathematician has given serious credibility to
> >that idea in close to half a century ... its seen in the field as a
> >charming, if unsophisticated, superstition from the past. Myself, as
> >well as several friends, would be most interested to see a formal proof of
> >your statement ... as it would likely be worth a Nobel Prize.
> 
> I would be curious to know the name of the individual who arbitrarily
> decided that 2+2=4.  But I'm flattered that you told my idea to several of
> your friends.  I'd like to see a "formal proof" that 2+2 might not be 4,
> also.  When might 2+2 become 5?
> 
I didn't tell my friends - the ones I have in mind are mathematicians whom
I consult when I need advice about the nuances of econometrics ... and
whom I 've had discussions with concerning Godel's thought. The notion of
"formal proof" that you quote as though it is suspect in some way is a
concept from mathematics - it has very definite meaning. Godel's formal
proof is several dozen pages of brilliant and tightly argued mathematical
logic. If your statement, which is a virtually direct refutation of his
argument, is to be accepted as true, it *would* win you a Nobel Prize, but
you'll have to actually construct one of those "rational arguments" you
are so famous for ... and if you can do so, I will gladly show my friends
the argument, and if the argument was actually something containing
substance, they would gladly submit your name to the Nobel Committee.
However, the delightful and transparent attempt to detract attention from
the idiocy of your first statement by demanding proof that 2+2 might not
equal four is hardly an argument. 

You made a definative statement about the nature of mathematical laws.
This is a claim that has been extensively discussed in the field, and is
widely agreed to have been fully resolved earlier in the century. I asked
for *proof* of the rationality of that statement ... the step by step
logic you use to not just present the idea as an opinion, but as a fact.
As I *have* read Godel's proof, I would be most interested to compare
your chain of reasoning to his. The question is not whether 2+2=4 ... it
is whether Godel's proof, considered in the field to be one of the most
brilliant pieces of mathematics in the history of the field, and one that
in the rarefied circles of pure mathematics is considered an event equal
in stature to the creation of the calculus, is *wrong*. You (clearly not
even realizing it), are claiming that it is. 

And it is this kind of thing I meant when in another post I said you used
"freshman logic". Your statement about the nature of mathematical laws is
nothing but your opinion, yet it is framed as though it is a "rational
fact". Even further, it has been *proved* wrong by a man using logical and
mathematical reasoning at a level probably beyond your ability to even
begin to grasp, let alone refute. You use, once again, the tactic you
often do, which is that when someone actually challenges one of your
statements, and demands the "rational argument" you so often demand others
use, you do not respond by doing so, but instead try to introduce some
different question. It won't work. You made a statement. According to the
field of mathematics, persuaded by a magnificent and elegant piece of work
by Godel, your statement is just simply *wrong*. And judging by the level
of your response, it seems likely you don't have the intellectual capacity
to even understand why ... however, if you'd care to read Godel's proof,
and offer your criticism of even a single statement, a considerable number
of people would be quite interested in seeing you do so.
								-JRC