10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

8020 Facebook Express Registration Is Closed. Get on the Waiting List

Members Area
Live Customer Service: (312) 386-7459

Home
80/20
Products
Free Tools
Adwords
Facebook Ads
Contact Us

Search for: Search Website

Like 66 people like this. Sign Up to see what your friends like.

Gödel’s Incompleteness
Theorem: The Universe,
Mathematics and God
80 years ago, Kurt Gödel toppled empires of mathematical philosophy
with his famous Incompleteness Theorems.

I’m every bit as interested in science,

philosophy and engineering as I am in
business. Gödel’s theorem has
profound implications for every
branch of knowledge.

The materialist view prevails in

secular circles. Materialism states that
the laws of physics and the universe
we know are all that is. It sees the
universe as a giant machine. It
assumes that everything we
experience is purely the result of blind
cause and effect. It scoffs at the idea
that there is any such thing as God or
metaphysics.
Kurt Gödel proved,
This view was epitomized by ironically, that it’s impossible
“Logical Positivism” which was to prove everything. And yes,
espoused by a group known as “The he proved it.
Vienna Circle” in Austria, led by
Ludwig Wittgenstein. Logical
Positivism says that anything that cannot be experimentally verified or

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 1/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

mathematically proven is invalid.

The Logical Positivists were confident that very soon, all the loose ends
of mathematics would be nailed down by a single unifying theory. The
world would finally fully embrace reason and logic and leave the failures
of religion behind.

Kurt Gödel was a member of the Vienna Circle and in 1931 proved that
a single unifying theory was impossible. He proved that the goal of the
Logical Positivists was unachievable. This was a devastating blow.

Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem says that any system that is complex

enough to express mathematics cannot prove, by itself, that everything it
says is true. It will always rely on something outside the system that you
have to assume is true but cannot prove.

You can then step outside the system and complete your proof, but in
order to do that you will now have to invoke something else from the
outside. So you keep expanding ever outward, invoking still more things
that you cannot prove.

This was very disturbing to mathematicians, because mathematicians

hate uncertainty.

Many people have raised the question of whether Gödel’s

incompleteness theorem applies to the universe itself. If the universe is
mathematical, then yes in fact it does.

Stated in Formal Language:

Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory
capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both
consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent,
effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic
arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is
true, but not provable in the theory.”

The Church­Turing thesis says that a physical system can
express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that
the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable
within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.

Any physical system subjected to measurement is
capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other
words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water
flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems
always give the right answer.)

Therefore the universe is capable of expressing
elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself
and a Turing machine, is incomplete.

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 2/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Syllogism:

1. All non­trivial computational systems are incomplete

2. The universe is a non­trivial computational system

3. Therefore the universe is incomplete

Some time ago I posted an article about this:

http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-
theorem/ and I was greatly interested in seeing if anyone would be able
to poke a hole in my argument. (The article is a much more thorough
explanation of Gödel than I am giving you here.)

Nearly everyone agrees that math is incomplete. The idea that the
universe is also incomplete apparently makes some people very
uncomfortable. If the universe cannot explain itself then there has to be
some kind of higher power at work.

The debate essentially comes down to this:

If the universe is illogical and inconsistent then it is possible for it

to be complete.
If the universe is logical and consistent then it is incomplete.
If the universe is incomplete, then it depends on something on the
outside.

In other words, if the laws of mathematics and logic apply to the

universe, then the universe has to have a metaphysical source. Atheism
can only be true if the universe is irrational.

(By the way, my experience from conversing with literally thousands of

atheists via email and on my various blogs is this: When you get down to
the core emotional center of why they don’t believe in God, it’s often
because they feel deep down that the universe is irrational. They’re
immensely disappointed that the world is full of evil and suffering.
Because of this, they reject the idea of God.)

You cannot prove that the universe is mathematical. But belief that
the universe is mathematical is the #1 assumption of modern science.
Toss out that assumption and the whole philosophical framework of
western civilization crumbles.

In the history of science, you will find that belief in a God who created
an orderly mathematical universe was one of the foundations of scientific
discovery.

If you visit the world’s largest atheist website, Infidels, on the home page
you will find the following statement:

“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed

system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 3/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

world affects it.”

If you know Gödel’s theorem, you know that all logical systems must
rely on something outside the system. So according to Gödel’s
Incompleteness theorem, the Infidels cannot be correct. If the universe is
logical, it has an outside cause.

Thus atheism violates the laws of reason and logic.

The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t formal proof that God exists.
But… it IS proof that in order to construct a rational, scientific model of
the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.

Practically speaking, all knowledge we have about anything is

incomplete. There are always some things you’re certain of, some things
you’re somewhat sure of, and some things you cannot prove at all.
Human knowledge is always enlarging the circle of what is known, but
every question that we answer just provokes more questions. In real
human experience, the quest to enlarge that circle never stops.

And I would submit to you that this is the essence of faith, as actually
practiced by thinking, reasoning people.

Many people assume that religious faith is some mystical imaginary idea
that is embraced purely on the basis of emotion or intuition. That it has
nothing to do with facts, reason or logic.

This is completely untrue – at least in in the Judeo-Christian tradition. No

one is asking you to believe without evidence or rational reason. Belief
in God, in Jesus, and even the afterlife is based on historical events,
logical propositions, and reasonable arguments.

Science itself originated from theology. Science assumed then, and

assumes now, that the universe is rational. That the universe operates
according to fixed, discoverable laws. Even science itself is a very
practical outworking of faith in the reliability and consistency of the
natural order.

The practice of faith is in many ways living out a hypothesis: That if you
follow the teachings and embrace the Spirit, you will have an excellent
opportunity to experience success in your work and your family. And
that you will be rewarded in your search for meaning and pursuit of the
deepest questions.

Perry Marshall

P.S.: If this intrigues you, make sure you read my more extended article,
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem: The #1 Mathematical Discovery
of the 20th Century

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 4/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

About the Author

Entrepreneur Magazine says: "Perry Marshall is the #1 author and

world's most-quoted consultant on Google Advertising. He has helped
over 100,000 advertisers save literally billions of dollars in Adwords
stupidity tax."

He is referenced across the Internet and by The New York Times, The
Washington Post, USA Today, the Chicago Tribune and Forbes
Magazine.

Last 5 Posts by Perry

10,000 Hours vs. 80/20: Eavesdrop on Roundtable
Staring Down the College Tuition Beast Part 2
Staring down the College Tuition Beast
Roundtable Chronicles: Betting on the Dark Horse
Roundtable Chronicles for October 6

Bookmark, Share, and Receive Updates...

Bookmark this post, or send it to a friend by clicking the social
bookmarking icons below. You may also post this article to your
website, blog or web 2.0 property - as long as you include a link to
www.perrymarshall.com and leave the content, links and the "About the
Author" intact.

Like 66 14 10

Get notified of new posts by RSS or email.

Enter your email here... Subscribe
Posted by Perry on July 25th, 2010. Filed in Not on Homepqage.
Tagged as Cause And Effect, Circles, Gödel's Incompleteness
Theorem, Giant Machine, Incompleteness Theorem, Incompleteness
Theorems, Kurt GöDel, Laws Of Physics, Logic, Logical Positivism,

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 5/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Logical Positivists, Loose Ends, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Mathematical

Philosophy, Mathematics, Metaphysics, Profound Implications, Proof,
Science Philosophy, Uncertainty, Vienna Circle. Follow responses thru
Comments RSS. Follow responses thru Comments RSS.

Comments on Gödel’s Incompleteness

Theorem: The Universe, Mathematics and
God »
1. July 25

Workout Goals Guy @ 12:40 pm

Not always have we understood everything we see or hear, but
continuous work especially in the field of mathematics has helped
us solve many previously though illogical concepts.

I think we should keep working towards better understanding of

everything, and hope that one day we understand the holographic
thing this life is.

Atheists say, “we see it then, we believe it”. But In religion there
is a saying, “believe and then you shall see it”.

Permalink Reply
2. July 26

Yadvinder Singh @ 5:20 am

Well the “Logical Positivists” are true in every context but human
beings are poor emotional creatures they make decision based on
emotions and they want to believe in God. They want to think that
someone is up above there who is watching them. And as you said
you can be completely logical and believe in God. Thanks for the
post

Permalink Reply
3. July 27

Rafi Hecht @ 11:37 am

Some loaded questions for loaded comments:

“It assumes that everything we experience is purely the result of

blind cause and effect.”

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 6/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

If one claims that a famous Van Gogh painting was the result of
just taking some buckets of paint, splashing them against the
canvas and voila! it came out a masterpiece, how quickly would
that person be believed? Or even, just taking a paintbrush and
mindlessly stroking lines on the canvas. The point I’m making is,
some things need to be pre-meditated, just as some experiences we
endure.

“It scoffs at the idea that there is any such thing as God or
metaphysics.”

Prove that air exists and, if it does, how it allows us to live and our
brains to function the way they do. Better yet, prove the
mechanics of the brain, and even the eye.

I can go on and on.

Permalink Reply
4. July 27

Richard Russett @ 10:51 pm

“The universe is incomplete, therefore God exists” is an obvious
non sequitur — even if your analogy between formal systems and
the physical universe were valid. (For instance, the universe could
be inconsistent. Or, something else other than God could complete
it.)

With that said, Godel’s proof is about additional assumptions

completing a set of axioms. Not a supernatural being completing a
physical universe.

IS the universe a logical system? Your examples illustrated how

you can make logical systems correspond to things and events in
the universe, but not that the universe IS a logical system. So at
most you can draw the conclusion any logical systems instantiated
in the universe are incomplete (or inconsistent), and can be
completed only by additional assumptions (not by a supernatural
being).

In general this argument glosses over probably a dozen important

distinctions, and makes another dozen leaps in logic.

Richard.

Permalink Reply
July 28

Perry @ 9:50 am
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 7/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

If you feel there are distinctions I have overlooked, you are

invited to address them point by point.

I have already addressed a large number of objections

identical to yours at
http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-
incompleteness-theorem/ – read the comments.

Any set of axioms is itself a system and therefore contingent

on some other axiom. Eventually you logically arrive at the
necessity of a single axiomatic assumption which cannot be
further subdivided. The logical conclusion is that the
universe is contingent on something that is indivisible,
immaterial and boundless. A metaphysical entity. We can
quibble about the details but regardless, it sounds an awful
lot like God.

Again this is completely based on logic. You will find that

the reasoning remarkably resembles that of thinkers like
Aquinas and Aristotle.

My logic does hinge on the assumption that the universe is

logical. I cannot prove that the universe is logical. You are
welcome to assume that it is not. But if you do, then from
that point forward you are forbidden to engage with me (or
anyone else for that matter) on the basis of science or
mathematics or logic, because your assumptions invalidate
all of those things. Believe in an illogical universe if you
choose.

If the universe is logical, if mathematics apply to the

universe, then the universe is incomplete and contingent on
a metaphysical entity.

Permalink Reply
July 28

Richard Russett @ 8:16 pm

OK, after reading through much of the discussion on
the other page, I see that reader Matt has very
patiently tried to point out several places where you
engage in hasty generalization, non-sequiturs, false
dichotomies and such. I see no evidence that you’ve
ever slowed down long enough to even consider
what he is trying to say to you. You seem to follow
up with the same rhetorical flourish each time,
challenging him to either agree with you, or give up
on science altogether.

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 8/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Let’s just take one distinction you’re missing —

probably the main one. In Matt’s words:

“you appear, once again, to be conflating the universe

with our model of the universe.” — comment 22 (this
is like the 4th time he’s tried to point this out to you)

It very much seems that your argument HINGES on

this mistake.

And I don’t see you even acknowledging the

distinction, let alone the fact that you are relying on it.

Richard

Permalink Reply
July 29

Perry @ 12:15 pm
Universe:
2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4 rocks

Mathematical model of the universe:

2+2=4

Are both statements true, or not?

Does the latter correspond to the former?

Does mathematics, which is our model of the

universe, tell us the truth about the universe, or
not?

I am fully and acutely aware of the distinction.

I am relying on it. I say it tells us the truth.

What say you?

Permalink Reply
July 29

Patrick @ 10:47 pm
Perry,

This was another point that bothered me

about the proof.

You started by saying a complete

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 9/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

mathematical representation of the

universe (a theory of everything) cannot
exist, because it will always rely on
something outside itself.

But the universe isn’t a mathematical

representation. It simply IS – whether we
model it properly or not doesn’t affect
the nature of its existence.

The blow to the materialist argument was

that a complete model is impossible, and
therefore God’s existence cannot be
disproved. That is not the same as
proving God’s existence.

Moreover, Goedel’s proof shows that, if

the assumptions of the mathematical are
unprovable – and if you’re claiming
THOSE assumptions is where God
exists – then you’re acknowledging
proof of God is impossible.

Patrick

Permalink
July 31

Perry @ 7:07 am
I think you need to be very careful
in trying to say that the universe
simply “is.” It came into existence
13.8 billion years ago, along with
space and time. Before then there
was no time. Something that was
not, came to be. The mathematical
/ logical position is that since it is a
computational system, then if it is
consistent then it depends on
something outside of itself to exist.
You can’t have an infinite
regression of axioms so at some
point you arrive at an original
axiom. An axiom which simply
“is.”

The cause and effect point of view

says that something had to cause
its existence. You can’t have an
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 10/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

infinite regression of cause and

effect so at some point something
has to be uncaused. The temporal
nature of the universe says that the
universe itself is not its own cause.
Something outside of space and
time has to be uncaused. God just
“is.”

There is something in Christian

theology which exactly
corresponds to this, by the way.
God appears to Moses. Moses
says “who shall I say sent me” and
God says “I AM” has sent you.
Jesus, when challenged by the
religious authorities, said, “Before
Abraham was I AM” referring
back to the Moses passage. The
Alpha and the Omega, the First
and the Last.

Gödel’s proof does show that you

cannot prove God, yes, you are
right. But it shows that you have
to take God as axiomatic,
otherwise you cannot form a
coherent model of the universe.
God is unprovable but a necessary
assumption.

Permalink
5. July 28

Tom Doiron @ 9:18 pm

Perry,
Truth is always outside the individual seeking it; else opinion
reigns. God reveals himself to those that hunger for truth. He
doesn’t waste His time with the unbelievers. There is a much
easier way to prove the existence of God and the resurrection of
Jesus Christ than intellectual masturbation.

Wishing You Plenty To Live,

Tom Doiron
Atlanta

Permalink Reply
July 28

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 11/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Perry @ 10:50 pm
What some judge to be “masturbation” is active
consideration and engagement for others. “God doesn’t
waste his time with unbelievers” is a statement that would
hardly stand up to a reasonably careful study of the Bible.

Permalink Reply
July 30

Tom Doiron @ 12:33 pm

Perry,
God can recognize a goat faster than any human,
because He has x-ray vision of the heart and perfectly
knows the future.

He calls His lambs home, but leaves the goats outside

the fold. Show me in God’s Word where the
hardhearted are born again of God’s spirit. They
make their choice, not Him, He just knows the
outcome ahead of time.

Is 40 years worth a reasonably careful study of the

Bible? Just that, the Bible, God’s Word; not
everybody’s opinion of it.

Perry the mind of man at it’s best is dummer than

God at His worst. Reason does not cut it.

Permalink Reply
July 28

Perry @ 10:22 pm

Daniel 4:

34 At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar,

raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity
was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I
honored and glorified him who lives forever.
His dominion is an eternal dominion;
his kingdom endures from generation to
generation.

35 All the peoples of the earth

are regarded as nothing.
He does as he pleases
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 12/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

with the powers of heaven

and the peoples of the earth.
No one can hold back his hand
or say to him: “What have you done?”

36 At the same time that my sanity was

restored, my honor and splendor were returned
to me for the glory of my kingdom. My
advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was
restored to my throne and became even greater
than before. 37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise
and exalt and glorify the King of heaven,
because everything he does is right and all his
ways are just. And those who walk in pride he
is able to humble.

Permalink Reply
July 29

Nick Neilson @ 12:55 pm

John 7

15 And the Jews marvelled, saying,

How knoweth this man letters, having
never learned?

16 Jesus answered them, and said, My

doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

17 If any man will do his will, he shall

know of the doctrine, whether it be of
God, or whether I speak of myself.

Matthew 7

17 Even so every good tree bringeth

forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil

fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring
forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth

good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall

know them.

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 13/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me,

Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven; but he that doeth the will of
my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day,

Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
thy name? and in thy name have cast out
devils? and in thy name done many
wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I

never knew you: depart from me, ye that
work iniquity.

24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these

sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will
liken him unto a wise man, which built
his house upon a rock:

James 2 –

12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that

shall be judged by the law of liberty.

13 For he shall have judgment without

mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and
mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

14 What doth it profit, my brethren,

though a man say he hath faith, and have
not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and

destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them,

Depart in peace, be ye warmed and
filled; notwithstanding ye give them not
those things which are needful to the
body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is

dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith,

and I have works: shew me thy faith
without thy works, and I will shew thee
my faith by my works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God;

thou doest well: the devils also believe,
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 14/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that

faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified

by works, when he had offered Isaac his
son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his

works, and by works was faith made
perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which

saith, Abraham believed God, and it was
imputed unto him for righteousness: and
he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man

is justified, and not by faith only.

To me, these verses make it clear that our

status as a “believer” or an “unbeliever”
is as fluid as our next choice to “do his
will” or to choose otherwise. In this fluid
structure, it’s hard for me to even define
what God “wasting his time with
unbelievers” would mean.

It certainly doesn’t mean he prevents his

prophets from preaching to sinners and
warning them against their doom.

There’s also no space in the bible for it to

mean that a man, or even an entire city,
who was an unbeliever can’t hear and
react to the message and become clean.

And I’m certainly not comfortable with

the idea of God refusing to send a “wake
up call” my way now and then because
he’s deemed that he’s wasting his time
with me.

So, I’m left to think that Tom’s criticism

is directed at the use of logic and
reasoning as a way of reaching out to
unbelievers.

In the opening of the post, Perry states

“I’m every bit as interested in science,
philosophy and engineering as I am in
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 15/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

business.” This is his blog where

generally like-minded folks come to
engage in
“active consideration and engagement”
and thus I have strong doubt that Perry’s
intent in posting the article was to draw
out and convert every atheist who reads
his Marketing Blog.

But, in the spirit of “active consideration

and engagement” I would ask Tom for
some clarity on the difference between
“intellectual masturbation” and Christ’s
use of parables, or the language of
Isaiah’s prophecies. Both used language
that require active study and intellect to
decipher. And neither were addressed to
those who openly opposed the gospel.
They were directed to Jesus’ followers to
increase their understanding.

So, if someone reading this post on

Perry’s blog is staunchly against
Christianity and unwilling to open
themselves to the logic presented… the
post will land somewhere on the scale
between meaningless and offensive. But,
the vast majority of people are not in
open opposition. The majority of
American’s do believe in God, but
haven’t put a tremendous amount of time
and intellect in to deciding what that
means for them.

It is true that conversion to Christ

happens by the simplest of means –
humility and faith leading to a choice to
obey God’s commandments – followed
by confirmation from the spirit and the
blessings of heaven. But, once we’re on
that path… are we done? Certainly not.

So, I for one appreciate a good dose of

“active consideration and engagement”
even if others deem it to be “intellectual
masturbation.”

Permalink
6. July 29

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 16/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Richard Russett @ 1:35 pm

Your way of making the distinction seems wrong to me.

It’s more like:

Universe: simply contains 4 rocks that do what they do.

Model of the universe:”if you take two of those rocks and group
them together with the other two rocks, you have 4 rocks in the
group”

(Note: the term ‘model’ seems a little strong with this simple
example, since there are no dynamics involved. I’d probably just
use the term ‘description’ at this point.)

The Universe itself does not CONSIST OF a set of logical

axioms. (or even Empirical generalizations)

It might be true that the Universe is more or less orderly, and

follows our empirical generalizations fairly closely.

But this does not make it CONSIST OF a set of logical axioms.

It CONSISTS OF matter and energy that simply does what it

does.

HOWEVER, . . .

There’s an even bigger problem with your argument.

Here is the rhetorical flourish you seem to keep coming back to

people with:

“My logic does hinge on the assumption that the universe is

logical. I cannot prove that the universe is logical. You are
welcome to assume that it is not. But if you do, then from that
point forward you are forbidden to engage with me (or anyone
else for that matter) on the basis of science or mathematics or
logic, because your assumptions invalidate all of those things.
Believe in an illogical universe if you choose” [cited from this
thread, but similar statements are all over your replies to others on
the other page.]

People who “say the universe is not ‘logical’” are not claiming it is
not orderly. They are simply claiming that the universe does not
“CONSIST OF” a set of logical axioms. You have to keep that
distinction straight.

Also, consider that arithmetic is either incomplete or inconsistent.

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 17/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

That doesn’t mean we have to throw it out. We can still do

accounting. Why does a system of axioms that’s incomplete need
to be completed at all?

I’ve never personally “completed” the axioms of arithmetic with

an “outside” axiom, yet I am perfectly comfortable using
arithmetic.

So if any axiomatic system instantiated in the universe (or read

onto it), or whatever, never gets completed, so what?

As I read through the discourse on the other page, I spent time

trying to figure out your MO, Perry.

You seem to start with a conclusion (God exists), find a neat

mathematical result (Godel’s theorem, fractals, power laws), and
then you do very quick free association strings of reasoning that
conflate a lot of distinctions on your way to “deriving” your
conclusion from the mathematical results.

Fair enough. We’ve all been caught up in the excitement of

finding a compelling argument that quickly moves from high
status intellectual premises to our favored conclusion, and
*hoping* it holds water on closer scrutiny.

But when others come along and point out distinctions you’ve
overlooked, you have to slow down and take a look. Especially
when several smart people independently all seem to point out the
same problems with your argument.

I don’t think you’ve shown a proper respect for your objectors.

You brush past the meat of their criticisms, pick on some minor
point, and then challenge them to agree with you or abandon logic
(based on equivocal uses of terms like ‘logical’).

Here is an initial list of terms I think you equivocate on:

“logical” (orderly, vs operating according to a system of formal

axioms)
“complete” (god “completes” the universe, vs. an assumption
“completes” an axiomatic system)
“the universe” (the stuff that makes up the universe vs our models
of the universe)

Your argument only seems to work because you are not seeing
these different uses of terms as you move through your argument.

Are you familiar with the confirmation bias? Or motivated

reasoning in general?

My hunch is that if you disagree with a conclusion, you are very

good at making the needed distinctions to pick the argument apart.
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 18/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

When you agree with the conclusion (and have personally

designed the argument), it seems you are very bad at seeing the
distinctions that spell doom for an argument.

We are all susceptible to motivated reasoning. But good thinkers

are aware of their susceptibility and try to take measures to
compensate for it. They listen to others when they make the
distinctions, and they try to keep the distinctions in mind in
subsequent discussion.

Anyway. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but you strike me in other
places as someone who prizes intellectual virtue, so I thought I’d
suggest you take a closer look at how you’re conducting yourself
in this debate.

Richard

Permalink Reply
July 30

Perry @ 8:54 pm
I did not say that the universe consists of a set of axioms. I
said that the universe, if it is consistent, depends on an
axiom.

When I say the universe is logical, I mean that in the

universe, 2+2=4 and 2+2 never equals 5.

If you wish to say that the universe is orderly but not logical
then you need to define precisely what you mean by that.

Arithmetic is either incomplete or inconsistent. You may not

care that it is incomplete but logicians and mathematicians
do. Because they seek to trace everything down to its roots
and they find they always end up with an unprovable
axiom. So it’s impossible to prove everything. You always
have to make an assumption and then prove it out logically.

Atheists (the Infidels website in particular) have made an

assumption that there is nothing outside the universe.

I have made an assumption that there is something outside

the universe.

Gödel’s theorem contradicts the atheists and it confirms my

hypothesis.

I work in advertising. I of all people understand

confirmation bias. Everybody has confirmation bias. Not
everybody clearly explains their views on their blog, backs
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 19/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

them up with mathematical statements and invites everyone

in the world to challenge their logic.

I use the word “logical” in the same way that a logician

would define it.

I use the word “complete” in the same way that Gödel used
it.

I use the standard definition of “universe” – Wikipedia –

The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of
everything that exists,[1] including all physical matter and
energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of
intergalactic space

If you disagree with any of these definitions then you’re

welcome to define your terms and construct an argument.

Permalink Reply
May 1

bhabani @ 4:33 pm
Hi Perry . You have used very big words. and you
sound very knowledgable also. And i am not very
aware whether god is there or not . Not even an
christian. (an Hindu) . Only thing i want to say here is
looks like you have either missed or knowingly
overlooked the difference between science and math.
Whatever is happening is explained by science and
not Math. Math is just a supporting block for science .
Math doesn’t explain the universe.
I see you have repeated said 2+2=4 . But thats only in
maths . But not in real life . Even taking that stone
example . If one of the stone breaks it becomes 5 .
now we have to say that one stone become two so we
have 5 stones.
The point i am trying to make here is Whatever math
deduces .. actual physical world is not oblized to
follow that . Math is just another tool to understand
what happened around us . So just proving something
mathmatical theorem and saying that physical world
is bound to follow is just a very loose way of proving
your point. And we should keep in mind the tool
(here math) needs updation with changing times.
Again i am reitirating i am not here to prove god is
there or not . Just saying they way you proved holds
very little ground .
In the mean time i would suggest you to read “The
grand desin” to see how god is not necessary in a
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 20/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

logical world .(which ofcourse can also be very well

questioned just like your’s)

Permalink Reply
May 1

Perry @ 7:25 pm
The only reason 2+2=5 in your example is
because you changed what you were counting.
In science, the real world always obeys
mathematical laws.

Permalink Reply
May 1

Bhabani @ 7:51 pm
Thanks Perry, But again looks like you
conveniently overlooked the point i was
trying to make. I was hoping you will
come up with more thoughtful answer.
Anyway Science obeys whatever math
deduce (and however it deduce) or Math
only provides a logical explanation to it,
is beyond my feeble mind(may be !!!).
But it won’t be a big waste of time if you
spare some time to ponder over it. But
sorry to say this article will hardly help
me have a greater faith in god or answer
any of my unresolved questions. And
sorry if i wasted you time .Thanks again
for taking time and responding

Permalink
May 1

Perry @ 9:23 pm
I believe your point is that math is
only a tool that science uses to
model things. Math is not physical
reality. I believe I understand your
point.

You might be overlooking the fact

that without math there is no
science. Science itself is a
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 21/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

mathematical construct of the

world. So you are right,
mathematics doesn’t prove, in the
ultimate sense, physical realities. It
only describes them. However if
you believe in the reliability of the
laws of logic – which is necessary
to embrace science – then the
conclusions of mathematics cannot
be ignored.

Permalink
7. July 29

Tom Doiron @ 8:23 pm

Nick,Perry, & others,

God divides mankind into three groups: Jews,

Gentiles(unbelievers), and Church of God. The rules have
changed since the time of Daniel or even the Book of Matthew.
God says He would have all men saved and come unto a
knowledge of the truth. He also promised that any one that
hungered for righteousness will be filled. Are all men saved, do all
hunger for righteousness? Will some convert? Absolutely and God
has called them by name. However there are others that will not
accept the accomplished work of Jesus Christ. It is those I spoke
of as the unbelievers God leaves to their own devices. Even Christ
told his disciples as he sent them out two by two to shake the dust
of their sandals and move on if a person was not hungry for truth.

Worshiping the human mind is no lesser a form of idolatry than

worshipping money, sex, or drugs. The human mind is incapable
of proving of disproving the existence of God because it can only
record and process the information gather by one or more of the
five senses. God is spirit which means He is extra-sensory or
beyond the realm of the senses. God cannot be known through
reason. It is believing that builds the bridge between the natural
man’s mind and the heart of God. God’s Word states that the
believing that builds the bridge comes from hearing God’s Word.
It has stood the blows of all the critics throughout the ages and is
still here to make know the heart of God for His people. Without it
we would know little or nothing about God.

So spend time with your “active consideration and engagement” to

delve into the literature of eternity and see what happens.

Wishing You Plenty To Live,

Tom Doiron
Atlanta
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 22/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Permalink Reply
July 30

Perry @ 1:08 pm
Tom,

Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together,” says the

LORD.

1 Peter 3:15 (New International Version)

15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be

prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to
give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with
gentleness and respect…

Romans 1:20
20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible
qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been
clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so
that men are without excuse.

I am not worshipping the human mind. The human mind is

capable of perceiving the existence of God through the
senses. Every single revelation of God to a prophet came
through peoples’ five senses.

1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,

which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked
at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim
concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have
seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal
life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We
proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you
also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is
with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that you are deriding something which you

resent or perhaps to not relate to. Nowhere in scripture do I
see any place where we are encouraged to throw our brains
away or believe God on blind faith. Consider how Jesus
reasoned with the teachers in the Temple even when he was
12. It makes no sense to speak of hearing without also
speaking of the mind and its understanding of what it hears.
Note in the passage I quoted to you about Nebuchadnezzar,
God restored his mind and he returned to God.

Permalink Reply
8. July 29

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 23/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Patrick @ 10:29 pm
Perry,

I’ve heard this argument before, although you stated it with more
thoroughness.

We can agree that a mathematical explanation relies on

fundamental assumptions, and proving each of these requires more
math, and another set of assumptions.

The flaw in this argument is that the assumptions get smaller with
each iteration, not bigger. Eventually we need to stipulate basic
things like “I am alive – I’m not just imagining it.” or “The things I
perceive with my eyes are real.”

Eventually we get to an assumption which is sufficiently small that

we can all nod and say “I can live with that. This concept has been
proven to my satisfaction.”

If we want name that uncertainty we feel, God, then I can live

with that too.

What I can’t live with is when we assign, to that uncertainty, all

manner of unproven and assumed traits, like a benevolent,
watchful, caring Father Figure in the Sky who has a purpose for
our lives we are intended to divine.

What I can’t live with is when we get handed a book full of mis-
translated, second hand accounts about a man who claimed to be
God’s son personified – who was happy to prove himself then, but
is not willing to provide proof of himself now – and then we’re
guilt-tripped into shaping our lives around it.

You and I have debated on this before, and you pointed out to me
that religion’s purpose is to teach a moral code (I’ve always
appreciated that observation, by the way).

Don’t you suppose there is an easier, better way to spread morality

– and to provide the fundamental assumptions required for the rest
of the world to exist – without relying on those contrivances?

I wonder if religion would be met with so much opposition from

those who aren’t looking for something to believe in (ie. the
atheist, the agnostics, and the materialists) if it endeavored ONLY
to teach morality and explain the world, without restricting and
trying to redirect our lives.

– Patrick

Permalink Reply
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 24/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

July 30

Perry @ 9:03 pm
Patrick,

The logic that I used will get you to deism.

If you want to go further than that then you’re in the realm

of theology. I think you’re misrepresenting the New
Testament with your description of “second hand accounts”
etc. A good starting point for this would be Anne Rice’s
essay at http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/anne-rice-
atheist-christ/

Proof of Jesus now – see

http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles/ – a recount
of my own personal experiences and scientifically
documented miracles that I’ve accumulated over the last few
years.

You cannot teach morality without attempting to restrict or

redirect peoples’ behavior. It’s inherent to the very idea of
morality. That human behavior has certain obligations and
that other people have the right to enforce those obligations.
All laws do that. Even atheists who don’t want religion
taught in classrooms are doing that.

I understand that atheists, agnostics and materialists are

frustrated by religion and i understand their many legitimate
objections. But morality always has to have some source of
authority. I think that if you look at the world through a
wide lens you will see that the atheist version of morality
has largely failed. Is it merely a coincidence that the three
worst tyrants of the 20th century (Lenin, Stalin and Mao)
were all rabid atheists? Is it merely a coincidence that atheist
governments killed more people in the last 100 years than
all religious wars in all centuries combined?

Years ago I had an atheist friend Mark Vuletic (you can

Google him), he said to me that the most perplexing
problem with atheism is it has no basis for asserting any
kind of absolute morality. Most atheists generally assume
that the operating principle of the world is Natural Selection.
And that’s about as amoral of a system as one can conceive
of.

Permalink Reply
9. July 30

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 25/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Viktor Kurakin @ 3:15 am

It’s a common mistake to apply Godel’s theorem to natural
sciences. The theorem states, that a theory cannot be proved
without accepting an unprovable axiom. In natural sciences a
theory is derived by analyzing previously acquired evidence and is
only considered valid for as long as it can accurately describe and
predict new knowledge.
For example, for thousands of years geocentric theory of
astronomy was considered perfectly valid, because it allowed to
accurately predict the movement of visible planets and stars. When
better optical devices were made, the geocentric theory became
invalid because of new evidence suggesting that the visible
universe was actually heliocentric.

There is no place for logical “proof” in natural science, because

natural science is based on knowledge that was previously proved
by reproducible experiments or observations. Mathematical
theorems used in natural sciences are only formal descriptions of
previously gained scientific knowledge.

We could say that mathematics is a “language” of science, a way

to describe and extrapolate knowledge.

In a few words: Godel’s theorem is not applicable in natural

sciences, and using it to prove the existence of God is the same as
saying that God exists because there is a word “God”.

Permalink Reply
July 30

Perry @ 1:01 pm

Viktor,

Your statement is tantamount to saying “it is a common

mistake to apply mathematics to natural sciences.” Is that a
statement you’re willing to stand by?

The relationship between math and science runs both

directions and both directions are valid. Mathematics makes
true statements about science and vise-versa. You can
derive an algebra or calculus equation for a falling object
and in doing so you invoke both deductive and inductive
reasoning, both mathematical proof and scientific inference.

Gödel’s theorem is a proof. My extension of it is not a

proof, it is an inference based on the unprovable axiom that
the universe is logical and mathematical. Mathematics is
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 26/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

more than a descriptive language, it is a predictive model.

In a few words: Gödel’s theorem is just as applicable to

natural science as any other mathematical proof ie those of
Euclidean geometry. I have used it to infer the existence of
God. If the universe is consistent it is incomplete, ie it is
contingent on something outside of itself.

Permalink Reply
July 30

Viktor Kurakin @ 3:25 pm

Perry,

As it happens quite commonly in religious debates,

you have distorted what I’ve said. I’ll say this again in
other words: mathematics doesn’t influence real
world. It is only a way to describe knowledge.
Mathematical model doesn’t affect the system it
describes: consistency of a mathematical theory
doesn’t make all the aspects of described system true.
If some data in that theory is wrong, then the whole
theory is useless.
Again, until there was a way to gather enough
evidence to contradict geocentric universe theory, all
the mathematical models describing it were correct.
Atoms were considered indivisible, alchemy was
considered scientifically possible – all these fallacies
were supported by consistent logical theories.
I’ll say this again: I am not saying that it is a mistake
to apply mathematics (or any other formal science) to
natural sciences. I am just saying that you can’t
PROVE reality of something by applying
mathematical theories. Please note, that I am talking
about natural sciences, where scientific method is
used.

Anyway, I don’t think that this is a productive

argument. I wrote my comment not to disprove the
existence of God, as it is impossible to both prove or
disprove His existence. I wholeheartedly believe that
everyone is entitled to an opinion and mine is that
Gödel’s theorem is not a valid proof of God’s
existence. If you are willing to argue that it is, I
always enjoy debating with a clever and educated
opponent.

Permalink Reply
July 30
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 27/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Perry @ 8:43 pm

Viktor,

You are distorting what I am saying. I did not

say that mathematical models influence reality.
I said that they describe reality.

And I didn’t say that I proved God existed. I

said that if we accept the proposition that the
universe is logical then according to the
incompleteness theorem, we also must accept
that the universe is incomplete.

Permalink Reply
July 31

Viktor Kurakin @ 3:19

am
Perry,

That’s right, you didn’t say that you

proved the existence of God. In your
post you said that belief in God is
necessary from scientific standpoint. You
also said that you “have used [Gödel’s
theorem] to infer the existence of God”.
The whole point of my comments was to
point out that mathematical models only
describe reality. They may be incorrect,
if initial assumptions are wrong. If you
infer something from a mathematical
model it does not mean that your
inference is correct until it’s proved.

But I think we are arguing about

different kinds of mathematics. If we
lived in a world of pure mathematics,
then Gödel’s theorem would certainly
require the belief in God. In the real
world it doesn’t. To quote Einstein: “as
far as the laws of mathematics refer to
reality, they are not certain; and as far as
they are certain, they do not refer to
reality.”

Permalink
July 31
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 28/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Perry @ 6:58 am

I would like to know the precise

context of Einstein’s quote. What I
do know is that Einstein is famous
precisely because he produced
mathematical models that
corresponded to reality better than
the previous ones did. And the
position I am taking is that the
more advanced our math and
science, the more exactly they will
both correspond to reality.

Permalink
10. July 30

Tom Doiron @ 8:59 pm

HI Perry,
I love to let God’s Word speak for itself. In my previous
comments I was lazy and paraphrased the scriptures. Here I will
quote them
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the
world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the
things that are freely given to us of God.

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words

which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of
the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he
know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by

the word of God.

I never suggested we “throw our brains away and believe God on

blind faith”. We need our brains to study His word because from
the Word of God comes the believing that bridges the gap
between the natural man and the believer.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is

profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of
man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost.
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 29/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall
drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the
Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.
(speaking of John The Baptist and his mother, Elisabeth)
Luke 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to
pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was
opened,

Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a
dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, that
ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your Thou art my
beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the
word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that
ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise
Ephesians 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches
of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the
inner man;
Colossians 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the
riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is
Christ in you, the hope of glory:
God’s Word has a number of different writers, but only one
author. God can manifest Himself in the senses world as He sees
fit. His Word is as much a part of Him as anything, but there are
records of voices, visions, messenger angels, etc. Otherwise we
must have His spirit for Him to communicate with us.
God can speak to His spirit which He put upon the Old Testament
saints, even Jesus Christ. Since the day of Pentecost which was
the birthday of The Church of God, His spirit is within the
believers.

Perry, I am thankful you are bold enough to talk about God in

your blog. The truth has never been popular and probably never
will be. I mean to offer no derision or resentment. I do not defend
the truth, but I am called to be an ambassador for Christ. It is the
love of God that leads a man to repentance and I will concede that
logic and reason at times can help. However, I do get bothered at
times when people act like the Ford was smarter than Henry.
Wishing You Plenty To Live,
Tom Doiron
Atlanta

Permalink Reply
11. July 31

anthony silverthorn @ 3:57 pm

I think the existence of God can be verified by the fact that we live
in an environment that recycles resources. That there is food for us
to eat and air for us to breath.
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 30/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

There is an order and disorder to creation that is mathematically

beyond our abilities to equate devised by a Being that surpasses
our ability to comprehend.

Permalink Reply
12. August 10

vijeno @ 7:26 am
Nice thinking. It’s always fun to watch good minds at work.

However, if you just add another axiom to the system, it’s still
either incomplete or inconsistent. You just apply Goedel to the
new system including god, and nothing really changes.

Yours is basically a variation of the uncaused-cause proof. So the

question is simply, why not apply the same logic to god as to
everything else – what caused god?

Permalink Reply
August 10

Perry @ 7:41 am

The point is, sooner or later you have to stop regressing and
arrive at a first cause. The first cause by definition has to be
uncaused.

Permalink Reply
August 10

vijeno @ 10:35 am
Give a reason for having to stop the causation, please.

Permalink Reply
August 10

Perry @ 1:28 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

Permalink Reply
13. August 10

Tom Doiron @ 4:27 pm

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 31/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Perry & All,

Along this line, the first word in the bible is GOD. The ancient
manuscript render Genesis 1:1 as “GOD created the heaven and
the earth in the beginning.”

My pee brain deducts that if you are to explain something, then

you must be bigger than it is in some way. I know of nothing
bigger than GOD to explain what caused GOD.

Wishing You Plenty To Live,

Tom Doiron
Atlanta

Permalink Reply
14. August 23

Channing @ 1:41 pm
I agree this proves a metaphysical entity. I also agree there must be
a Creator or First Cause.

But I don’t think this proves that this entity is necessarily equal to
the Christian God nor that the Bible is completely correct.

Permalink Reply
August 24

Perry @ 3:10 pm

You are correct.

Permalink Reply
15. November 11

serp @ 12:26 pm
I believe your logic is mistaken, even before you get to the God
part.

Godel’s proof shows that if we assume the basic axioms of

arithmetic, there must be propositions which are true but not
provable with that set of axioms. This does not tell us what the
propositions are about, it only tells us that they must be true and
that they are not provable.

The laws of science, because they hinge on these same axioms,

require this same consequence, as you say. However it does not
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 32/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

follow that there are any propositions /about the material reality
that we can observe and interact with/ that are true but not
provable from a finite set of axioms. Yes it is necessarily true that
science will never exhaustively prove every true proposition.
However it may be the case that all of these propositions are
mathematical equations that have no particular relevance to the
observable universe, and this would still satisfy Godel’s proof.
The funny thing is even if you wanted to call one of those obscure
equations God, you’d still be mistaken, because Godel
acknowledges that new axioms can be adopted to account for
hitherto unprovable facts. There is no one true fact that is and
always will be “unprovable.” Rather, there will always be /some/
unprovable facts for any given set of axioms. This means we
might have a different axiom-escaping God for every possible
model of science.

Nonetheless, hats off for pursuing rational discourse instead of

pure faith. I’m curious which one you’d choose if you ever had to.

Best Wishes

Permalink Reply
November 14

Perry @ 1:19 am
You can multiply unproven axioms endlessly if you want,
but that’s contrary to the aims of mathematics. Mathematics
searches for a minimal set of axioms.

What I have shown here is that if we take the existence of

God as axiomatic, then in theory all else might be provable.
Most importantly, we have grounds for assuming the
universe is rational.

Rational discourse and faith are not an either/or. I think

Gödel shows that you can pursue rational discourse to your
heart’s content, but at the end of the line, you will have to
take something on faith.

Permalink Reply
November 14

serp @ 12:52 pm

You ignored my first point though. The fact that

science necessitates math, entails that science has the
same consequences as math: that there are true but
unprovable mathematical statements. Mentioning the
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 33/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

universe does not entail any additional

incompleteness to what is entailed by math. If you
don’t think that the incompleteness of math is enough
to prove God, then your proof is invalid. If you do,
why mention the universe?

And faith and rationality aren’t necessarily at odds.

We have to take our memory and the consistency of
the universe on faith to get anything done in a day,
even though we have no absolute proof, but there are
/some/ faiths, you must agree, that contradict
rationality. What I’m asking then is what you would
do if you came to suspect that your faith might be one
of them.

Permalink Reply
November 17

Perry @ 10:25 am
Great points, and questions.

Actually I think that Gödel does infer the

existence of God, even in the strictly
mathematical sense. But the physical universe
is less abstract for most people and the
connection between math and the physical
world is an important one. What you said, “The
fact that science necessitates math, entails that
science has the same consequences as math:
that there are true but unprovable mathematical
statements” is a vital insight.

You are totally right, faith and rationality are

not at odds and that is one of the main reasons
why I wrote this. There is a very popular
misconception (in some cases it’s driven to the
point of prejudice) that faith and rationality are
enemies.

I have considered the possibility that my faith

might contradict rationality for most of my life.
It’s why I pursue questions like this and invite
all comers to comment. I started my site
http://www.coffeehousetheology.com about 7
years ago partly because I wanted to see if
Christianity could stand up to intellectual
scrutiny. I figured if I send a million visitors to
my website, sooner or later somebody’s going
to find the crack in the armor.
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 34/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Permalink Reply
November 17

serp @ 2:30 pm
I see. Thinking more carefully about it, I
want to posit to you the theory that your
argument is no stronger that first-cause
type theories and that the mention of
Godel’s proof doesn’t really aid it.

Your argument seems to hinge on this

assumption: “Facts which are true (even
mathematical ones) are true for a some
reason.” If this were not the case,
incompleteness would be unsurprising
and uninteresting. This causes, as you
say, a problem of infinite regress. The
thing is, that assumption was already a
problem for the axioms. They need
“reasons to be true” as well. Godel’s
proof would only be of interest to you if
you believed the following: “Some
mathematical truths can be true for no
additional reason, but those truths must
comprise a complete and finite set.” But I
doubt you, or anybody else, really
believes that. People usually go one way
or the other with these things.

That said, I think the first-cause

argument that deals with physical events
is a much stronger argument, since it also
has the infinite regression problem, but
deals with objects, which we can clearly
observe. In mathematics, one might
argue that infinite regress is a feature of
the way in which imperfect humans have
developed math, and that math is merely
a tool, but this argument can’t be levied
against material events.

To be a bit deflationary, I believe that

your argument is almost entirely
encompassed and surpassed by Aquinas’
arguments 600 years before Godel was
born. The only addition that Godel’s
proof really provides is to catch any
peculiar stragglers who have said to
themselves “Infinite regression of
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 35/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

material causes is not compelling, and

mathematical facts can be true for no
reason, but only if they’re axioms.”

Permalink
November 17

Perry @ 3:06 pm
On my other page about this at
http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-
incompleteness-theorem/ in the
comments, I point out that my
conclusions about God are
remarkably similar to Aquinas’
Via Negativa. The thing that
incompleteness adds to the first-
cause approach is the fact that the
entity that caused the universe and
the laws of mathematics must by
definition be infinite, immaterial
and indivisible.

Information theory and the

existence of codes further provide
100% inference that the source of
the universe is conscious.

If I ask an atheist “What is the

reason that mathematical and
physical facts are true” and press
for answers I eventually arrive at
“they’re true just because.” It’s not
unusual for them to say “we’re
here so why does it even matter?”
Everything hangs in mid-air.

Science was birthed in a belief that

God ordered the universe to obey
fixed, discoverable laws; that the
universe is upheld by God’s
command that it should be so. The
assumption that it does obey fixed,
discoverable laws is perhaps the
most successful axiom in history. I
propose to you that an assumption
of a single indivisible infinite
being allows you the smallest
number of unprovable
assumptions in math and physics.
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 36/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

(There’s a comment in the queue

about this and it’s going to take me
some time to get to it.) If we adopt
the Judeo-Christian conception of
the universe, which Solomon
summarized this way – “Thou hast
ordered everything by weight and
number and measure” then even
induction has a firm foundation.

If however, the atheists are right

and the universe is a closed system
with no transcendent cause, then
the universe is necessarily
irrational. Which makes sense. Is
not the atheist metanarrative
essentially “the universe is way to
irrational and disappointing for me
to believe that it is ordered by
some kind of benevolent deity.”
You can be an atheist or you can
embrace rationality but you cannot
do both.

Permalink
16. November 11

Teapot @ 3:11 pm
Firstly, this is not what Godel’s incompleteness theorems are about
(you are extrapolating from descriptions of arithmetic to
descriptions of the universe- a formally invalid inference), but lets
focus on something that you’ve said:

“If the universe is incomplete, then it depends on something on the

outside.”

This does not follow from Godel’s incompleteness theorem and I

doubt that you would be able to derive this conclusion from any
undeniable first premises. You must show that there is some
entailment between incompleteness and contingency. Think about
it this way: if God were complete before he made the universe,
then he needn’t have created the universe. But he did. Does it
follow from this that God depends on something outside of
himself for his existence?

Permalink Reply
November 14

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 37/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Perry @ 1:23 am

You don’t seem to have read my formal statement. It is as

follows:

Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory

capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both
consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent,
effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic
arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is
true, but not provable in the theory.”

The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can

express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that
the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not
provable within the system and is likewise subject to
incompleteness.

Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of

expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children
can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a
bucket does integration, and physical systems always give
the right answer.)

Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary

arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing
machine, is incomplete.

Syllogism:

1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete

2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system

3. Therefore the universe is incomplete

Let’s examine your last question in light of Godel. Does the

completeness of system A exclude the possibility of system
B existing – given that system B is contingent on system A?

Permalink Reply
17. November 11

Teapot @ 3:16 pm

I must further contest your comment that “belief that the universe
is mathematical is the #1 assumption of modern science. Toss out
that assumption and the whole philosophical framework of
western civilization crumbles.” That is not the case. Rather, much

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 38/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

of modern empiricism uses mathematics to describe the universe.

But to say that science operates as though entities in the world are
ontologically identical to numbers and formula (ie, that they “are
mathematical”) is an absurd equivocation that surely you yourself
cannot believe to be true about how science operates.

Since this equivocation is the point on which your argument

pivots, I assume you will be returning to the drawing board post
haste.

Permalink Reply
November 14

Perry @ 1:24 am
Please point out where said that entities in the world are
ontologically identical to numbers and formula.

Permalink Reply
18. November 12

Jason @ 2:29 am

Exactly.

You have to first come to a conclusion that there is a God. Now

you are in the realm where a God must exist. There are several
religions that believe in God. It is up to you pick the right “door”
i.e. religion. I would advise to be unbiased in your choice, but to
try christianity even though it is publicly unpopular by the non-
believers of a God. It must have to do with people who think that
their duty is to save as many people as possible and when they
confront non-believers they get annoyed thus with time we would
be classified as “annoying” people.

It seems to me that there are Christians that say they believe and
just because they say they believe doesn’t mean they are instantly
granted access into heaven. God reveals himself to you if you are
worthy.

Thus you “wake up”

I actually went to a psych ward because of this event and the non-
belivers tell me I am mentally insane while the believers praise that
what they believe in means they are saved. I do not think God has
it that easy. He will choose you somehow and you will know it.

I have a very long and deep history with God. I called him my
best friend when I was a child. Sold my soul to the devil when I
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 39/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

was a child due to a very sad event in my life. Had a mental

breakdown at age 20 after I followed down the wrong path. And
here I am now confused about what God wants me to do. Tell my
story and events with him to the world in hopes of saving others or
be silent and wait for the world to end.

I am now trying to read the bible and decipher it. Much like Issac
Newton I think God gave me a key to decipher the bible.

Anyways, Good luck in being chosen. Its really really weird when
you do.

Best,

Jason

Permalink Reply
19. November 18

Ellas Typhon @ 3:47 am

Those christians… forever afraid of that dreaded infinite regress,
that keeps hitting them on the back of the head nonetheless.

In no simulation are you guaranteed that that spoon is actually real.

It might just be, but you will never know. God just adds another
layer of spoonliness. If that helps you cope, you’re welcome – that
doesn’t mean that you couldn’t go further. The axiom is always
arbitrary.

It is all about the courage to start from an arbitrary point, and admit
to it, that’s all.

Permalink Reply
November 18

Perry @ 7:56 am

I don’t avoid infinite regress because I’m a Christian, or

because finite regress helps me cope. Almost ALL
philosophers reject infinite regress because it becomes
impossible to nail down anything. Any unanswered
question just gets pushed back, back, back. You say you’re
going further but I don’t see how you’re getting anywhere.

And I, for one, make the choice to assume that the spoon is
real.

What are you hoping to avoid by pushing things further

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 40/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

back in time or further out in space or logic?

Permalink Reply
November 18

Ellas Typhon @ 3:02 pm

That’s right. They think it’s more comfy to start at an
arbitrary point. In fact, it’s the only way, because
that’s how human thinking operates. But that doesn’t
make the point you choose to start any less arbitrary.

It’s a choice, plain and simple. Wherever you start,

there is always yet another onionesque layer behind
it. You jutst gather all your strength and say, okay,
here I start my thinking, and what lies behind it, I
leave up to others.

Admitting to the arbitrariness is called courage. Can

you guess what denying it means?

Ultimately, it’s just honesty to admit that we really

don’t know. We cannot nail down anything, and
that’s perfectly fine. We just have to deal with it,
that’s all.

Permalink Reply
20. March 13

Roscoe @ 12:54 pm

Atheism is not equivalent to materialism, as the author implies but

does not claim. Those things external to the material universe on
which it depends may be something like a multi-verse, or simply
that there is a limit to mathematical description of the universe, and
that limit is the big bang.

Additionally, if one believed that the universe was based on some

reality external to the universe, the unless and until we are able to
investigate and test it, logical positivism dictates that any guess as
to the nature of that reality would be invalid.

The fact that some logical positivists expected some unified theory
and that they were wrong, does not make logical positivism wrong
or worthless. It’s a great way to measure the validity of claims.

Religious faith is rarely based on logic. Apologetics is the field of

using logic to justify faith, a faith that exists before logic is applied.
For many, faith comes first and logic second. This is alright, but
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 41/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

people should be ware that placing faith in anything without

FIRST evaluating that thing carefully is very dangerous.

Permalink Reply
21. May 29

Ben @ 9:14 pm
Your argument sounds reasonable. However, it is internally
flawed because once you introduce a deity that can somehow
know all (omniscient as per your definition/belief), the theorem
then must be applied to this God as well. If you leave God out of
the bounds of Godel’s theorem, then you do not accept the
theorem. According to Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, God can
never fully comprehend himself, thus rendering the idea of an
omnipotent, omniscient being scientifically impossible.

Essentially, there are only a few options. 1, that the universe

contains everything (is infinite), in which case this argument is
debatable at best; 2, that the universe is entirely finite, in which
case what is it expanding into, what is outside of it and why does
it not have bounds? All are important questions with multiple
hypotheses. The problem you face there, is that no matter what is
outside the universe, there is no reason Godel’s theorem would not
apply. Infinity is a concept, but even if “God” is infinite, he cannot
understand himself as things cannot explain themselves or their
existence (as per Godel).

So either the God that is outside of the universe is not omniscient

(and by implication omnipotent), or the God is not outside the
universe at all, or there is something outside of God (other
universes, multiverse theory etc). In any case, the argument you’re
putting forth doesn’t really accomplish much. It IS an interesting
logical experiment, though.

Of course, you did kind of gloss over the fact that mathematicians
believed (some still do) for bulk of time since Godel proved his
theorems that they were useless logical tricks and not mathematical
ones at all. Only in 1977 did mathematicians even find a single
“interesting” statement inexplicable in PA which brings the grand
total up to two, I believe.

Many mathematicians still feel the theorems are useless in that they
only raise questions in terms of themselves (the questions would
never arise naturally as most important mathematical questions do
and as in pure math).

Permalink Reply
May 30

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 42/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Perry @ 7:39 am

God cannot comprehend Himself if God is complex. God

can comprehend Himself if God is simple and indivisible.

Christian theology teaches that God exists in three

expressions: Father (essence), Son (expression = word),
Holy Spirit (understanding). Hebrews 1:3, speaking of
Jesus: “And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact
representation of His nature.” If you examine the logic of
what you just said, it becomes evident why self-
understanding and self-expression are necessary for God to
be logical.

Christian theology also understands that there is no division

or contradiction between these three expressions of God.
God is community. This is why God IS love. Love is
intrinsic to God, and not just something God is capable of.

Love can only exist when there is a plurality. Unity can

only exist when there is agreement. The trinity is a complete
unity within plurality of expression.

If God is love and love is perfect agreement between a

plurality of expressions, then a perfect love is consistent
with total self understanding.

You are right, no matter what is outside the universe, there

is no reason Godel’s theorem would not apply.

Your statement “either the God that is outside of the

universe is not omniscient (and by implication omnipotent)”
is a non-sequitur, based on what I just said above. God is
infinite and indivisible and therefore omniscient.

Permalink Reply
22. June 18

Christian Salas @ 1:34 pm

A fundamental flaw in your argument, which is insurmountable as

far as I can see, is that Godel’s incompleteness theorems only
apply to what are known as ‘computably enumerable’ axiom
systems i.e. those systems whose axioms can in principle be listed
out by a computer (even if this would take an infinitely long time).
This is what the phrase ‘effectively generated’ means in your
statement of Godel’s theorem.

Even if we accept that the universe is an axiomatic mathematical

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 43/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

system, there is no reason whatsoever why the universe’s axioms

should be ‘computably enumerable’. It is easy to contruct
extensions of Peano arithmetic (one example is called ‘true
arithmetic’) whose axioms are not computably enumerable, and
Godel’s incompleteness theorems simply do not apply to axiom
systems like these.

Before you can apply Godel’s theorems to the universe (assuming

that the universe is an axiomatic mathematical system), you first
have to show that the universe’s axioms are computably
enumerable. There is no reason whatsoever why they should be,
and therefore there is no reason whatsoever to presume that
Godel’s theorems apply to the universe.

Permalink Reply
June 18

Perry @ 2:34 pm
I cannot prove that the universe is computationally
enumerable, I can only point out that the entire enteprise of
science and mathematics implicitly presumes that it is. See
the Church-Turing Thesis above. If you wish to reject
science and math instead of accepting God as axiomatic,
you are free to do so.

Permalink Reply
June 20

Christian Salas @ 4:59 am

Your statement that science and math implicitly
presume computable enumerability of the universe is
completely false. It is not necessary for the universe to
be computably enumerable in order to do science and
math. To give a simple example, the set of all real
numbers is an uncountably infinite set and therefore
not computably enumerable. Despite this, we use real
numbers constantly in science, math and everyday
life. There is no need whatsoever for the universe to
be computably enumerable in order to be able to do
science and math in it. Science and math do not at all
presume that the universe is computably enumerable.

You also seem to have a misunderstanding of the

Church-Turing Thesis. The Church-Turing Thesis is
a statement about the algorithmic computability of
functions (it is an unproved hypothesis that all such
functions are recursive). There are non-recursive
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 44/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

functions (one famous one is called the Halting

Problem) which are not algorithmically computable.
Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the
computable enumerability of the universe.

In order to apply Godel’s theorems to an axiomatic

mathematical system you must first show that the
axioms of that system are computably enumerable. As
I said in my previous message and repeated above,
there is absolutely no reason to think this is true for
the universe (even if we accept that the universe is an
axiomatic mathematical system – if you could prove
that you would win the Nobel Prize in physics and
you’d be more famous than Einstein). We could still
do science and math perfectly well even if the axioms
of the universe were not computably enumerable.

I am afraid your whole case is based on assumptions

which are just as huge as the assumption “god exists”.
You are essentially trying to prove one huge
assumption (“god exists”) by implicitly making other
huge assumptions (“the universe is an axiomatic
mathematical system with computably enumerable
axioms”) which are just as huge. There is no reason
whatsoever why the latter should be true.

Your whole case is fundamentally flawed I’m afraid.

Permalink Reply
June 20

Perry @ 6:30 pm
There is no infinite set of real numbers in the
universe, because the universe is finite. To the
best of our actual knowledge, everything in the
universe is finite. To the best of our
knowledge, everything in the universe is also
countable, measurable, weighable, quantifiable.
Science always assumes this to be true.

A possible exception to this might be

consciousness, in which case consciousness
has a metaphysical component. Which brings
us to the age-old “mind/body problem” and the
question of free will, which I think we can set
aside for the moment.

Outside of that, everything in the hard sciences

is quantifiable and computable.
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 45/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

I reiterate that science and applied mathematics

do presume computable enumerability of the
universe. It’s not provable, though I certainly
would love the fame and fortune that would
come with proving it.

If you assume that it is not enumerable then

there is nowhere left for science to go.

Permalink Reply
June 21

Christian Salas @ 1:07 pm

I’ll try again, being fully explicit this
time, because with all due respect I think
you have some confusions which
prevent you from grasping what I said
earlier. I will leave no room for doubt
now (I hope). For Godel’s theorems to
be applicable to the universe you have to
assume two main things, which I will
show need not be true at all:

(a). That the universe is in reality an

axiomatic mathematical system i.e. that
everything in the universe we perceive as
being real can be deduced
mathematically from a set of axioms.

There is no reason whatsoever why this

should be true. In science and applied
math what we are doing is using OUR
OWN axiomatic mathematical systems to
approximate certain features of the
universe (e.g. by means of differential
equations). Just because we are able to
use our own axiomatic systems to do
this, it does not mean that the whole
universe itself must therefore be an
axiomatic system! The latter does not
follow logically from the former. It is a
logical non sequitur.

So the first insurmountable weakness of

your case is that there is no need
whatsoever for the universe as a whole
to be an axiomatic mathematical system.
Science and math do NOT presume this.
In doing science and math we are just
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 46/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

using OUR OWN axiomatic systems to

approximate certain aspects of the
universe’s behaviour. That does not
require the universe itself to be an
axiomatic system.

And note again that the Church-Turing

Thesis has NOTHING to do with this.
All the Church-Turing thesis says is that
algorithmically computable functions are
recursive. There are many non-recursive
functions which are not algorithmically
computable. This has nothing
whatsoever to do with the question of
whether the universe itself is an
axiomatic mathematical system. The two
things are completely unrelated.

(b). Even if (a) were true (which I have

just shown you need not be the case at
all), you also have to assume that the
axioms of the universe form a
computably enumerable set in order to
apply Godel’s theorems. What this
means is that, in principle, a computer
could list out all the universe’s axioms
fully, even if this required the computer
to carry on listing forever. In principle,
even if it took forever, the computer
could list out all the universe’s axioms.
This is what it means to be computably
enumerable, and this is what is required
to apply Godel’s theorems.

Again, there is absolutely no need for

this to be true for the axioms of the
universe. There are many simple things
that cannot be listed out fully by a
computer even if it carried on forever
e.g. the set of all real numbers. The set of
all real numbers is said to be
‘uncountably infinite’ because no matter
how hard you try to create a list of all
real numbers, you will always find that
you have missed out real numbers from
the list. A computer could not do it any
better than we could, even if it carried on
forever trying to produce the list. The set
of all real numbers is ‘un-listable’. This is
what it means to be non-computably
enumerable.
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 47/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Now, there is no need whatsoever for the

axioms of the universe to be computably
enumerable. Even if we perceive
everything in the universe as finite
(which again is an open question in
science – it is by no means certain), this
does not mean that the universe’s
AXIOMS have to be computably
enumerable. The axioms could be an
uncountably infinite set, and still give us
a universe in which we perceive reality
as being finite. You simply cannot
assume from the perceived finiteness of
the universe that the universe’s
AXIOMS themselves are computably
enumerable. That is again a logical non
sequitur.

And again, science and math do not in

any way presume that the AXIOMS of a
mathematical universe are computably
enumerable. All we need in order to do
science and math is that the universe can
be approximated by OUR OWN
axiomatic systems. The fact that we can
approximate certain features of the
universe using our own axioms in no
way implies that the axioms of the
universe must themselves be computably
enumerable.

In summary, there is absolutely no need

whatsoever for assumptions (a) and (b)
to be true. We can do science and math
perfectly well without them, because all
we need in order to do science and math
is that OUR OWN axiomatic systems
allow us to approximate some features of
the universe e.g. using differential
equations. The fact that we can do this in
no way implies that the universe itself
must satisfy the assumptions of Godel’s
theorem.

I repeat again, your whole case is

fundamentally flawed because you are
assuming that (a) and (b) are true when
there is no need for this to be the case.
We do NOT need (a) and (b) to be true
in order to use OUR OWN axiomaic
systems in science and math to
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 48/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

approximate some features of the

universe. You DO need (a) and (b) in
order to apply Godel’s theorems to the
universe however.

Permalink
June 22

Perry @ 7:52 pm
Christian,

Thank you for the cordial debate. I

see from a Google search that you
have credentials in mathematics
and it’s great to have this
discussion with a qualified
individual.

You said,

This need not be true: (a). That

the universe is in reality an
axiomatic mathematical system
i.e. that everything in the
universe we perceive as being
real can be deduced
mathematically from a set of
axioms.

I am not saying that the universe

ontologically IS an axiomatic
mathematical system. I am saying
that it strictly obeys mathematical
laws and the laws of logic.
Mathematical models of physical
systems are isomorphic with those
systems.

We have two mutually exclusive

choices:

1. The universe does not obey

mathematical laws.

2. The universe obeys

mathematical laws.

If you choose (1) then the

foundations of science go out the

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 49/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

window.

If you choose (2) then all

mathematical truths also apply to
the universe. If 1+1=2 in math
then 1+1 also equals 2 when
you’re counting rocks. It makes no
difference. Integration,
multiplication, division are all the
same with numbers as they are
with physical objects, magnetic
fields, energy, etc.

If we discover a new property of

algebra tomorrow, we can be sure
that it works in applied
mathematics just as well as the
algebra we already knew.

Syllogism:

1. All mathematical truths apply to

physical systems
2. Incompleteness is a
mathematical truth
3. Therefore incompleteness
applies to physical systems

Statement 1 above is an axiom, it’s

not provable. But it’s arguably the
#1 axiom in all of science. It’s
simply a statement that the
universe is logical.

Now to your second statement:

(b). Even if (a) were true (which

I have just shown you need not
be the case at all), you also have
to assume that the axioms of the
universe form a computably
enumerable set in order to apply
Godel’s theorems.

Again we have two mutually

exclusive choices:

1. The axioms of the universe are

not computably enumerable

2. The axioms of the universe are

computably enumerable
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 50/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

If you choose #1, that means the

universe relies on either an infinite
number of axioms, or else a set
axioms which are illogical.

If the universe relies on illogical

axioms then once again you’ve
kicked the stool out from under
science.

If the universe relies on an infinite

number of axioms then that’s
infinite regress. “Turtles all the
way down.”

So our choices are:

1. The universe relies on an

infinite set of axioms

2. The universe relies on a finite

set of axioms.

#1 violates parsimony. So #2 is the

only workable assumption. In
mathematics you can make an
infinite number of statements from
a finite set of axioms but you can’t
do anything with an infinite
number of axioms.

The assumption that (a) the

universe obeys mathematical laws
and (b) it relies on a finite set of
axioms is the only scenario that
honors the principles of both
science and math.

Perry

Permalink
23. August 24

steven @ 9:59 am
consider an opposite notion
can a state of nothing exist
can it be called a state
can it exist

Permalink Reply
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 51/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

24. May 29

Phill @ 3:37 pm
I just lost the game

Permalink Reply
25. May 29

Phill @ 3:41 pm
I just won the game.

Permalink Reply
26. October 29

Jamie Anderson @ 11:20 pm

Entertaining OP and thread. I’ve just started looking at the topic of
Godel’s proof and read how much it has been misused. The OP is
a classic example. Thank you

Permalink Reply
27. September 2

Ken Koskinen @ 3:38 am

Perry, I see you still do not understand Godel’s Incompleteness
Theorem. You’ve misapplied it several times in your essay. Here
are the essential feature of the theorem:

In simple terms, “complete” means that all the truths of the logic
system can be reached from its axioms or starting statements.
Incomplete means there will always be some result that cannot be
reached from its axioms. Incompleteness does NOT arise in just
any logic system but only to formal systems that are:

1. finitely specified
2. large enough to include full arithmetic i.e. Peano arithmetic
3. consistent

Only if these conditions are present can it be said the system is

incomplete. Smaller systems like Euclidean and non-Euclidean
Geometry are complete; just as is Presburger arithmetic that does
not include the multiplication, x, operation.

Godel did not apply his theorem to theology. It was a theorem in

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 52/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

logistics and has been misapplied many times …

You quoted: “Any effectively generated theory capable of

expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and
complete …” (This is poor wording. A system that is incomplete
has to be consistent. It is one of the three requirements).

If a computer uses algorithms that are large enough to use full

arithmetic, are finite specified and consistent then the algorithms
will be incomplete in the Godel sense (not the computer).

The universe is also not subject to Godel’s theorem as it is not a

mathematical or logic system. In simple terms the universe is not
math. People use math in order to understand elements within the
universe and the math we use can either be complete or
incomplete in the Godel sense.

You have repeatedly mixed up and misapplied concepts trying to

prove god exists. You are spreading and perhaps marketing false
ideas/conclusions.

Permalink Reply
September 5

Perry @ 9:02 pm
The universe is finite.

The known laws of physics can be expressed with Peano

arithmetic.

Any mathematical model of the universe is incomplete.

Therefore if the universe is consistent (logical) it therefore

must also be incomplete.

A computer can be modeled by an algorithm or emulator

and the algorithm or emulator will be incomplete. Therefore
the computer is incomplete as well. This is self-evident: No
computer can account for its own existence without
reference to something outside of it.

The fundamental premise of science is that the universe

obeys mathematical laws. You are welcome to reject that
premise and reject science itself, in which case you can
maintain the position that incompleteness does not apply to
the universe.

The above has been discussed at length in prior blog

comments.

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 53/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Permalink Reply
September 5

Ken Koskinen @ 9:53 pm

Perry,

The laws of the universe are expressed with algebra

alone and/or blended with non Euclidean geometry as
per Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. The later
is a blend of complete and incomplete mathematics.
However this is besides the main points.

Some theorists think the universe is finite but others

think it could be infinite in some sense. In any case
you are confusing Godel’s concept of incomplete
with the common usage of the term. Godel’s usage
only goes to MATHEMATICAL systems that have
the three qualities that I showed in my first post. The
universe is not math and we use both complete and
incomplete MATHEMATICS to model phenomena
within it.

A computer is not conscious therefore is not aware of

itself nor can it appeal to anything outside itself. You
are really mixed up when you misapply the
Incompleteness Theorem here. The theorem is
descriptive of mathematical systems that have the
three qualities. You can use an algorithm that is
complete in a computer, such as one that does
geometry (the later is complete in the Godel sense).

Things in the universe obey natural law that we

model using mathematics. Our better models are seen
as useful approximations. Still the universe is not
MATH! So again you are misapplying Godel in
claiming the universe is “incomplete.” The universe is
complete, how could it not be? Again Godel’s
Incompleteness Theorem only goes to mathematical
or logic systems.

God in some sense may exist but it has nothing to do

with Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. If you want
to use Godel in a discussion about god’s existence
then use his Ontological Proof. At least that goes to
theology. Perry wake up!

Permalink Reply
September 7

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 54/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Perry @ 1:01 pm

The universe is not ontologically math.

But the universe is mathematical. It is logical.

All science implicitly presumes this to be the
case.

If this is not the case then science itself is a

failure.

All the theorems in a high school geometry

book are not conscious but they still appeal to
axioms outside themselves, like Euclid’s 5
postulates. A computer likewise need not be
conscious to rely on systems outside itself.

The computer is not self existent. The computer

can only do what it does because someone or
something outside of itself built and
programmed it.

Your statement “The universe is complete, how

could it not be?” is telling. You need to think
about what you have just said here. Are you
really trying to tell me the universe is self-
existent? Did it give birth to itself? The matter
created the big bang from which the matter
came? How does that work? How is that not
circular logic?

Godel says if a system is consistent, then it

HAS to be incomplete. Science assumes the
universe is consistent. If so, it cannot be
complete.

Permalink Reply
28. September 7

Ken Koskinen @ 2:22 pm

Perry you are really confused and are confusing your readers.
Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem ONLY applies to
MATHEMATICAL systems that have the three features that I
spoke to in earlier comments. Let’s go over them in more depth
and then hopefully you will see the light. If a mathematical system
is incomplete in the Godel sense it must:

1. have finitely specified set of axioms. This means you must be

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 55/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

able to list them. (If you can’t then you cannot say the system you
are referring to is incomplete. However, realize this is only about
the axioms and not about all of the subsequent true statements that
are products of the said system.

2. the system must be large enough to include full arithmetic i.e

Peano Arithmetic. This means the said system must include all the
axioms and symbols including the operators used in the said
arithmetic.

Geometry in all of its forms and Presburger arithmetic do not and

hence are complete mathematical systems. Godel showed as part
of his doctoral thesis that Presburger arithmetic is complete.

Perry take notes and delete your mistakes on your websites about
geometry and the silly talk about things inside and outside of
circles. It has nothing to do with the Incompleteness Theorem and
it makes you look like a fool to those who know better.

3. the system must be consistent or logically follow its axioms and

operators.

To make a Godel analysis the subject has to be a mathematical

system and you must be able to list its axioms. It cannot be applied
to the universe as a whole. Wake up Perry!

Permalink Reply
September 7

Perry @ 3:40 pm
1. The physics profession presumes that there is indeed a
finite specified set of axioms and you can find them in any
physics book. F=MA for example. We have not discovered
all of the laws but all the known laws can be contained by a
fairly small book.

2. All the laws of physics can be expressed in Peano

arithmetic.

3. So far as we know, the universe is consistent.

Mathematical truths also apply to the physics. If 1+1=2 in

math then 1+1 also equals 2 when you’re counting rocks. It
makes no difference. Integration, multiplication, division are
all the same with numbers as they are with physical objects,
magnetic fields, energy, etc.

If we discover a new property of algebra tomorrow, we can

be sure that it works in applied mathematics just as well as
the algebra we already knew.
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 56/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Syllogism:

1. All mathematical truths apply to physical systems*

2. Incompleteness is a mathematical truth
3. Therefore incompleteness applies to physical systems

*There are some mathematical truths where no application

in physics is yet known. But there is nothing in physics that
is currently known to violate any mathematical law.

Permalink Reply
29. September 8

Ken Koskinen @ 3:09 am

Perry

You have repeatedly been saying and/or implying that geometry is

incomplete and that is wrong. You wrote: “All the theorems in a
high school geometry book are not conscious but they still appeal
to axioms outside themselves, like Euclid’s 5 postulates …” The
problem is that geometry is complete in the Godel sense. The
axioms of a mathematical system are part of the system.

Permalink Reply
September 9

Perry @ 8:32 am
The axioms of geometry are not proven. You cannot prove
that a line can be extended infinitely in both directions. In
real physical space, infinite distance does not even exist.
The mere possibility must be hypothesized. Euclid’s
postulates are taken to be self evident.

Look in particular at the 5th postulate, which because of its

complexity, many hoped could be provable from something
simpler.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_fifth_postulate#History

From http://www.timstakland.com/2013/06/05/how-
rhetoric-shapes-science/ “Finally, in the first quarter of the
nineteenth century, a Hungarian and a Russian…Bolyai and
Lobachevski…established irrefutably that a proof of
Euclid’s fifth postulate is impossible.”

Permalink Reply

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 57/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

30. September 9

Ken Koskinen @ 10:26 am

Perry that’s not the Godel issue of incompleteness. It requires that
a formal system must be:(1) the axioms are finitely specified and
this means list-able,(2) is large enough to include full arithmetic (3)
the system is consistent.

Geometry does not meet condition (2)and therefore it is complete

in the Godel sense.

The ultimate provability of the parallel line axiom is a separate

issue. This means any attacks on it were not Godel’s issue. In any
case people can show that the parallel line postulate does hold in
any test that has been done. It is a given in astrophysics that it does
hold true in a flat universe.

His two Incomplete Theorems break down to the three features.

See “New Theories of Everything”, John Barrow, Oxford
University Press, 2007. pp. 51 – 61.

Again, you and others are are mixing up issues. You cannot use
Godel in the same breath. I have tried to get you to see that … I
hope this time it pierces your biases.

Permalink Reply
September 9

Perry @ 12:22 pm
Euclidean Geometry is not a formal system (as discussed at
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/90393/why-
euclidean-geometry-cannot-be-proved-incomplete-by-
godels-incompleteness-the) in the Godel sense, so you are
right.

In keeping with the point of my article, though, Euclidean

geometry still rests on unprovable axioms; quite obviously
so.

Permalink Reply
31. September 9

Ken Koskinen @ 9:18 pm

Perry

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 58/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Schopenhauer argued the parallel line postulate is evident by

perception even though it was not a logical consequence of the
other Euclidean axioms. Forms of non-Euclidean geometry do not
contain or use the postulate and are complete in the Godel sense
and are not subject to the parallel line criticism. Forms of
arithmetic that do not contain all the axioms and operators of
Peano Arithmetic are also complete. The bottom line is all of
mathematics is NOT incomplete like you claim in your articles.

Complete forms of mathematics as well as incomplete ones can

and are being used to understand elements in the universe. Your
syllogisms that treat the universe as a mathematical system are
incorrect. Humans create or discover mathematical systems and
use them to calculate and understand elements in the universe.
However the universe isn’t math.

While we are speaking about proofs, no one has proven the

universe is finite either. Yet you do not have any problem in
claiming it is so.

In any case I am glad you are starting to understand the Godel’s

Incompleteness Theorem and how it is distinct from the criticism
of the Euclidean parallel line postulate. Unfortunately your articles
imply that everything you suggest in your logic chains and your
conclusions stem from Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. It is not
so.

Permalink Reply
September 10

Perry @ 8:44 am
Ken,

Every logical system above a certain degree of

sophistication is incomplete. Even some systems that do not
qualify as formal systems in the Godel sense still rest on
axioms you cannot prove but have to assume, which is my
thesis.

You are free to reject the notion that the universe performs
computation. But in doing so you are rejecting the most
fundamental premise of science. If on the other hand we
accept that the universe when subjected to measurement
adds, subtracts, multiplies, divides, integrates etc. then it is
necessarily incomplete.

If you insist that all kinds of algebraic logic and logical

operations apply to the universe but also insist
incompleteness is somehow an exception, you will have to
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 59/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

justify that.

I am FAR from the first person to point this out, by the way.
Stephen Hawking for example –
http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-the-end-of-
physics.html; physicists Stanley Jaki and Freeman Dyson, to
name three.

Permalink Reply
32. September 10

Manu „???“ @ 10:20 am

::: it’s done.

“God” is proven.

>> Formalization, Mechanization and Automation of Gödel’s

Proof of God’s Existence

Christoph Benzmüller, Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo

(Submitted on 21 Aug 2013 (v1), last revised 25 Aug 2013 (this
version, v3))
Goedel’s ontological proof has been analysed for the first-time
with an unprecedent degree of detail and formality with the help of
higher-order theorem provers. The following has been done (and
in this order): A detailed natural deduction proof. A formalization
of the axioms, definitions and theorems in the TPTP THF syntax.
Automatic verification of the consistency of the axioms and
definitions with Nitpick. Automatic demonstration of the theorems
with the provers LEO-II and Satallax. A step-by-step
formalization using the Coq proof assistant. A formalization using
the Isabelle proof assistant, where the theorems (and some
additional lemmata) have been automated with Sledgehammer and
Metis. <<

http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4526

Permalink Reply
September 10

Perry @ 11:00 am

Excellent!

Permalink Reply
33. September 10

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 60/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Ken Koskinen @ 3:23 pm

Perry you and others are assuming what humans do directly
compares with what elements of the universe does. Firstly we do
not have any formalism of the collective i.e. uni-verse.

Secondly all we can do is to tackle some select elements within the

universe with our mathematical models. We can get good
approximations in process and this is what keeps scientific inquiry
alive. And so NO … I do not reject science. I understand it!

One mistake you and others make, is to confuse what we do in

science with ALL of the universe. That is the unwarranted giant
step that you and some others make. This is part of the reasons
why your syllogisms that go to the universe are nonsense. Not to
again mention your misuse of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem as
the false starting point in some of your essays!

You ignore and do not comment on the specifics of these

criticisms and simply go on to cite some more nonsense. However
this is common game playing on internet discussions. I get that.
My guess is that you will probably not edit your internet
presentations, even though, by now, you know you should.

To fool others is common but it takes a little more to fool oneself.

When this is done it makes fooling others easier as it makes you
look … well fill in the blanks … !

Permalink Reply
September 10

Perry @ 4:00 pm

Are you suggesting that “human mathematics” is some kind

of subjective phenomenon that has no independent objective
reality?

Are you assuming that the mathematical operations which

humans do cannot be compared to machines? I refer you to
the Church-Turing thesis.

You are free to assume that science and math only apply to
certain parts of the universe. In that case you are postulating
that the universe is inconsistent. In which case it can be
complete as you claim.

If that is your position, don’t tell me you are still practicing

science, because science has no framework for modeling
behavior that defies logic and violates mathematical laws.
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 61/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Permalink Reply

Leave a Comment
We welcome your reply. All we ask is that you refrain from comments
that are unintelligible, solely self-promotional or insulting. All comments
are monitored and we will delete any that we deem inappropriate or
unacceptable.

Name :

Email :

URL:

Would you like my free mini-course, "9 Great Lies of Sales &
Marketing" delivered to you via email?

Submit Comment

Notice: A cache module is enabled on this site. Your comment may take
some time to appear.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Perry Marshall's books on

Google AdWords are the

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 62/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

most popular in the world.

He's referenced across the
World Wide Web and by

Home
Facebook Advertising
Google Adwords
Adwords Guide
Advanced Adwords Training Strategies
Renaissance Club
B2B Marketing
Articles and Editorials
How To Write a White Paper
Whitepaper Course
Bryan Todd
Perry Marshall Bio - Who is Perry Marshall?
About Us
Marketing
Recommended Tools
Contact Us
Google+

Blog Archives
Select Month

First Name Email Address Phone Number Get Started Now »

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 63/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Translate
Translate to:
English

Translate
Powered by Google Translate.
The Perry Marshall
Marketing Letter - August
Issue

What People Are Saying...

"Perry's techniques generate hot, responsive leads, build opt-in lists, and drive laser-targeted traffic to
your website. His method beats the pants off other pay-per-click search engines by as much as three
to one - on a consistent and predictable basis."
www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 64/65
10/11/13 Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Jonathan Mizel, President

Cyberwave Media
Maui, Hawaii

"One of the Absolute Best Investments I've Ever Made"

"Iwas getting about 2830 clicks per month with Google AdWords at $1.06per click.

I've spent about 8 hours total readingyour stuff and implementing it.

Based on the results of my last few days I am on track to get 7815clicks in the next month and spend
the same $3,000 a month . a savingsof $23,400 per year, or $2925 per hour for the 8 hours I have
invested.

OK, I did have to buy the kit, but this is without doubt oneof theabsolute best investments I've ever
made and I haven't even started!

And yes, I have done most of this while sitting at home inmy underwear."

Keith Lee
TMS
Kent, WA

Home
Sitemap
Google Adwords
Our Products & Services
Marketing
Contact Us
Affiliates

Contact our support-desk for billing and customer-service related issues.

Report technical errors or abuse to: [email protected]

Earnings Disclaimer and Legal Statement | Full Disclosure About Our Testimonials | Privacy Policy

Perry S. Marshall & Associates 159 N. Marion St #295

Oak Park, Illinois 60301-1032 USA
(312)386-7459
AdWords(TM) is a Trademark of Google Inc., Mountain View, California.
Perry S. Marshall & Associates is an independent and impartial consulting firm.

Copyright © 2013. All Rights Reserved.

Support

www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/ 65/65