Mathematica Godel and the Nature of Mathematical Truth

AI Thread Summary
Gödel's skepticism about communication and the precision of natural language is central to the discussion of his work on mathematical truth. He aimed to create a theorem that encapsulated the rigor of mathematics while addressing philosophical questions, ultimately resulting in his Incompleteness Theorem. However, this theorem was often misinterpreted by contemporary intellectuals, who perceived it as conveying a message contrary to Gödel's original intent. The conversation also highlights the irony of philosophers striving for precision in language yet failing to achieve mutual understanding. The dialogue weaves in references to notable figures like Wittgenstein, Einstein, and Russell, emphasizing the complex interplay between mathematics and philosophy. The discussion is framed as a compelling exploration of Gödel's ideas and their implications for the nature of truth in mathematics.
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
2,283
Reaction score
3
Godel and the Nature of Mathematical Truth
A Talk with Rebecca Goldstein

Gödel mistrusted our ability to communicate. Natural language, he thought, was imprecise, and we usually don't understand each other. Gödel wanted to prove a mathematical theorem that would have all the precision of mathematics—the only language with any claims to precision—but with the sweep of philosophy. He wanted a mathematical theorem that would speak to the issues of meta-mathematics. And two extraordinary things happened. One is that he actually did produce such a theorem. The other is that it was interpreted by the jazzier parts of the intellectual culture as saying, philosophically exactly the opposite of what he had been intending to say with it.

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/goldstein05/goldstein05_index.html

A fascinating read! Highly recommended. In addition to discussing Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in the context of his metaphysical views, it also weaves Wittgenstein, Einstein, Russell, and the Vienna Circle of logical positivists into the philosophical and historical tapestry. And in a deliciously ironic twist running through the whole discussion,

here are philosophers obsessed with trying to say things precisely, with giving the rules for precision, and what they're saying about precision isn't precise enough for them to understand one another.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Excellent interview, thanks for signposting it. Her views seem well thought out and perceptive.
 

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
39
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
39
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top