Are Minds Required for Truth?

I thought it was over. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Are minds required for truth?

The answer is yes – for some meanings of “mind” and some meanings of “truth”.

To say it differently, the terms “mind” and “truth” are sufficiently imprecise that we cannot actually make sense of the question in the title.

My take: The notion of truth emerges from language. It’s what people is a social group (or language community) use to express agreement or disagreement. And language could not work without that ability to express agreement or disagreement.

One can hold a skeptical view of propositions, whereby they don’t actually exist at all, even in the presence of minds. Philosophers who take that position suggest that we should talk of “statements” or “sentences” or “assertions” rather than propositions.

We have to use those words when defining “proposition”. :slightly_smiling_face:

No. Or rather the mind is only a tool for the heart to allow the soul to think. The bible says man thinks with his heart. not with his mind. The mind, memory to me, is like a logical machine. the heart, priority conclusions, is what is the intellectual thinking part.
Yes there is truth. Who decides what is true? Thats the story of humanity.
Our hearts are more intelligent then our functioning mind. Yet its all about conclusions we have convinced ourselves about.
Thats why in origin issues the evidences we all claim prove our side are not persuasive to the other side.
this because our hearts have made conclusions and our minds are only along for the ride.

How do you know this (that formal systems of logic don’t have anything to do with God)?

That’s a fair question! I know that no system of logic includes a “God” axiom. There is good reason for this, because introducing an assumption about God would introduce paradox.

I’ll add this - I don’t think God can be a valid mathematical assumption, but might be valid for others reasons, like emotion, love, compassion, and empathy. Logic does not answer all questions, IMO. YMMV

I have no problem with that, but when you say “axiom” and “system of logic”, you automatically presume a mind (unless you are platonically mindless :slightly_smiling_face:).

Yet, every system of logic has paradox built into it. I would refer you to Godels incompleteness theorem.

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an algorithm is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers
For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

The quote is from Wikipedia. In short all systems of logic need something outside the system to affirm basic truths and are not complete in themselves.

This means, even math needs God or atleast truths that are eternal and immovable.

Interesting, why do you think so? Do you mind elaborating?

I would be careful here. First of, Godel’s incompleteness theorem does not say that “every system of logic has a paradox”, but rather that there are statements about the natural numbers that are undecidable. Having undecidable statements about the natural numbers is very different from having paradoxes.

Further,

Not true. First of, Godel’s incompleteness theorem does not say that basic truths are undecidable, but rather that very specific statements about the natural numbers, called Godel sentences are undecidable by logical systems whose axioms can be generated through effective procedures. I would be surprised if basic statements about God(s) are Godel sentences.

Further, one cannot add “something outside the system” to patch this up, i.e. one cannot appeal to

to patch this system, as adding “truths that are eternal and immovable” is equivalent to adding new axioms. This new system is also subject to Godel’s incompleteness theorem, and thus remains incomplete.

4 Likes

Why are the statements undecidable? Isn’t it because of a paradox within it where the statement seems both true as well as false?

As I understand it, this means that there will always be basic axioms in any logical system which we believe to be true intuitively even though there is no proof for the same.
I don’t see God in Godel statement, bit in the incompleteness of logical systems. All systems of logic need to be rooted in truths that are beyond the scope of the systems proofs.
Would you agree that if these “truths” were different, then, the conclusion of the logical systems would be different?

No, they are undecidable because they cannot be proven.

Your understanding is mistaken then. What you are describing is just the fact that logical systems have axioms, and has nothing to do with Godel’s incompleteness theorem.

3 Likes

That’s more or less the definition of what an axiom is; an assumption so basic that it cannot be proven. If it could be proven it wouldn’t be basic. Some axioms (like Identity) are intuitively true. Others might not be so obvious, and may be excluded from alternative systems. The axiom of Choice, having to do with enumerating infinities, is an example of this.

If God can move the immovable object, or otherwise change the rules to allow the object to be moved, it introduces paradox. If God says, “Let 1=2”, breaking the axiom of Identity, then everything based on on that assumption of Identity breaks too.

As an open but related question, Can God make God not exist?. Breaking the axiom of Identity is, to my thinking, the same as God defining Himself out of existence (and everything else too). If there is an omnipotent God, it is a God that chooses not to break the universe.

@PdotdQ provided excellent responses to everything else, so I won’t respond to the other points.

This seems to be the “If a tree falls in a forest …” question again. There MAY EXIST propositions that are true but unknown or undiscovered. They remain true even if no mind wanders along to give them a name.

Whether or not I am Platonically mindless is an open question. :wink:

This type of “no-limit” understanding of omnipotence has been rejected by philosophers since the middle ages. God cannot perform logically impossible task as such task is not well defined - e.g. “a triangle with 4 edges” is just word salad with no real meaning.

1 Like

Yes… but why should that lead to paradox. Couldn’t it be possible to have an entirely coherent logical system that is different from the current one in which 1=2?
How do you know this is not possible?

Which is why I think God would be constrained to follow the axiom of Identity, and perhaps a few others.

First a clarification: I made the unstated assumption that the logic of set theory applies to the physical world and also to the metaphysical (perhaps a step too far?). The former seems reasonable, but the latter can only be speculation. IF God is not bound to this logic, then this is consistent with my earlier statement that God is an axiom - assumed but not provable.

How is that even a question? A system of logic that defines “1=2” is paradoxical by definition.

You might define a system of logic that doesn’t include the axiom of Identity. Such a system could be entirely consistent, but (I’m pretty sure that) nothing would be decidable.

Trying to catch me out with a series of unanswerable questions is not …polite. If that what you are trying to do, then I will start demanding your own answer to the question before I reply.

And at least 700 years of classical Catholic philosophy agrees with you. This is very different from your original claim:

Because one can axiomatically introduce an assumption about God(s) who do not have “no-limit” omnipotence.

Interesting! I have never encountered this, and I wonder if such a statement can really be made axiomatically, but I’m willing to accept your word on it. My previous brushes with this question were with people who would never admit to limited assumptions - and maybe not even to assumptions ITFP.

I find this interesting. I mostly read Catholic philosophy, and I am not familiar with Protestant and non-Christian conceptions of God. In Catholicism, that God does not have no-limit omnipotence is a traditional and well accepted statement.

Indeed, ideas of it (though the full statement is not until much later), seem to be present in documents as old as the Pauline Epistles, 2 Timothy 2:13: “If we are unfaithful [God] remains faithful, for [God] cannot deny himself.”.

One might even argue that hints of it is as old as the Old Testament, Hebrews 6:18: “so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie…” Though I don’t really know how to properly analyze the Old Testament.

My educated guess: most of my previous encounters have been with certain Evangelical Protestants, and Omphalism make frequent appearances.