Apparently you didn't read or understand Godel's response to Russell.
You can call something silly, of course.
Proving something to be silly...well, that's sorely lacking in your comments.
But you believe whatever you like, even in the face of the inability to support your claims.
"It doesn't invalidate mathematics or logic or set theory. The Pythagorean theorem is still true. But there is some doubt. Kurt Godel (Gödel) proved that Number Theory (and by identical arguments, every branch of mathematics) is inconsistent. He converted Russell's Paradox, the set version, into a statement in Number Theory, and showed that Number Theory is inconsistent. This had huge repercussions in the world of mathematics. All of this leads to the following problem:
1. There are things that are true in mathematics (based on basic assumptions).
2. There are things that are false.
3. There are things that are true that can never be proved.
4. There are things that are false that can never be disproved.
And that is a problem, because we cannot ever tell if something is true unless we can prove it."
Yes, there are things that are true that can never be proved. Godel's work suggests that within the confines of a system, or a set, you can not truly prove certain things from within the boundaries of that situation. You would need to stand above and outside of that set, to view it objectively in order to have the type of proof that can only be worthy of objective empirical proof.
So what is the proof of empiricism, when the empiricists have no way to exclude themselves (to be fully objective) from their observations. They are intimately involved in the problem and the solution, which is a great inconsistency when searching for a truth that in independent of the observer and the relationship between the observer and the observed.
So there is an innate contradiction in empiricism as there is no way to check the instrumentation or process of empiricism against something known to be true. It is essentially a self referral process, where the self external perceptions depend on the self for self validation.
This suggests that truth of a deeper level can only be achieved by "going outside of the system" to get a completely objective view of the system.
The truth of the origin of the universe therefore can never be found within the universe itself, or study of the parts of the universe alone and independently from the completeness of the universe alone...only a study of the parts and the whole would yield full knowledge...and only from the outside of the universe could this be done, viewing everything objectively can that be known empirically. Which gives rise to the concept that there is something greater than the universe, beyond the universe that knows the universe...in the same way the fishes who swim in the ocean don't really know the totality of the ocean even though they are living in the ocean, experiencing the ocean all the time.
Science is full of these important types of contradictions, because our world is replete with contradictions...mostly born out of our inability to see both the part and the whole at the same time. Our minds move from one point (which stands in relationship to other points) to the next point, compares and contrasts, forms relational logic accordingly...but does not have the ability to do both at once. Like a camera that can zoom in, or have a wide range lens, it can not do both simultaneously. So the perspective is never of the set, and the components of the set simultaneously. Totality is the concept of the whole of the Totality and the parts of the Totality being known simultaneously, which produces a greater knowledge than just a view of the parts, or a view of the whole, but a complete view of the parts and the whole from both within the Totality and outside of the Totality simultaneously.
How could this happen?
Simply. Say there is only a singularity. Just one thing. Nothing else, just one. What is the property of that one thing. Consciousness, which means that the one thing could be conscious. Of what? Itself of course. It could be conscious of itself. Now, what happens when there is consciousness of anything? You have three things in play. One is the subject, then the observer. The object, the observed, and the distance and process between the object and the observed. You have subject, object, and process of observation. Three things are in play.
So singularity becomes aware of itself, and creates a relationship within itself of subject, object, and the process of observation. One becomes three, but all are still one. How can one become three and remain one? It is logically not possible in this world, as we see all parts are distinct and separate from each other...even though we do admit they make up a whole, but our minds still don't see that they actually are just one Totality. We can't see it, because we are bound my material logic and material thinking...which demands we see diversity, and the intellect decides yes or no. We do not experience a detached view of reality, because we are like fish in the ocean who have no perspective of the Totality of the ocean.
Totality is a singularity that when it becomes aware of itself, produces these parts of itself, from itself, and one has become both one and three simultaneously. When we only see the partial values, we don't see the whole value. We don't see the Totality, because we are a part of it, but we identify with the partial value, and not the whole value.
http://www.braungardt.com/Theology/Godel-Proof of God.htm
Quote from stu:
You might study Russell's Paradox, that might help you with the general concept of totalities, and how your "The Totality" or God as you call it, is.... well.....just silly.
Somehow I doubt it will.
