Kurt Godel: Is Mathematics Syntax of Langauge

[colcrafts]

good job dude. really cool video. your passionate interest in such an exiting and prolific topic really is inspiring. and it is valuable considering the lack of short, well made videos on the topic. there three compliments now work on your naration or have a local radio host do it. you still rock though ;)

[IvanTheHeathen]

Regarless, Gary, I am ecstatic to at last see you upload a video. The volumes of Godel's complete works are each quite expensive and my university library does not have those books, so it is a joy to have a glimps at some of Godel's philosophical work.

[SacredGeometryDecoded]

Thanks for the uploads. Great series handled very well.

[albeatle]

Great lecture. Just one semantic mistake of the aloud reading: at 1:26 Gary reads "is" instead of "in", according to the text as edited in the Feferman book. The sentence goes: " 1. Mathematical intuition, for all scientifically relevant purposes, IN particular for drawing the conclusions as to observable facts occuring in applied mathematics, can be replaced by conventions about the use of symbols and their application."; not: "...for all scientifically relevant purposes IS particular for drawing...".

[GaryGeckDotCom]

this is not part of the secret history series...it's just an appendix video to help make parts of the new one more clear...

[MyDefendor]

I am very interested in this topic. Can you please get rid of the background sounds and add either subtitles or don't read from a a paper(give some proper intonations<human feeling>) otherwise it is hard to stay focused with the way you talk?

[hookedonafeeling]

This is some dense stuff, Gödel was a brainac.
I am seriously worried about your pase on the on going process of Secret History, man! What the FRrakk!? Put it out already. I love you.

[GaryGeckDotCom]

it's coming...and BTW this is a supplement video to the forthcoming part 24

[SaveriusTianhui]

Wonderful. Thank you so much for this. Godel (and Wittgenstein) correctly understood that the logical positivists were misguided. Kreisel understood, along with Godel, the deep importance of Kant and Hegel. Godel correctly points to the importance of Husserl but overestimates the role of explicit propositions-- something Wittgenstein learns from Saffra-- something obvious to children of Theatre. Incompressibility is a key concept.

[armchairtin-kicker]

Gary, is there a spelling error in the video’s title or is it intentional? I only bring this up because I am directing fellow students to this video by title. Keep up the great work. Thanks again.

[CGMaat]

We just super love your tree of light to our minds - thank you . We are just retired folk but if we had means we would sponsor you to have t.V. channel! Maybe there one of such privilege that would cate to illuminate the dumb driven trump disease in our country .
God bless the good, the true, the beautiful . Help america be SMART AND KIND and most importan with INSPIRED MEDIA-

[jeffmorrissey]

Is it even possible to think this deeply without losing at least some of your sanity?

[naimulhaq]

Whether mathematical or logical /philosophical, Godel's theorems attempts to assimilate opposites into the same proposition (truth value of the lying paradox). How to rationalize benevolence and malevolence of God, a job best done by Hegel's 'unity of opposites'. Duality is ubiquitous, called 'universal spirit', by Hegel.
It is possible to observe infinity, but the language defining it becomes ever incomplete.
A sphere has no beginning or no end, its surface is continuous . Can this semantics be considered meaningful or a factual concept or an empirical truth that is 'observable', if so, any marking on the sphere can be considered as a starting point and therefore also an end point. Infinity cannot be mathematically defined.
Causality, time, space are also infinite, therefore has no observable definition.

[richardfredlund]

God is by nature precise, therefore ultimately mathematical. The only substantive difference between mathematics and other topics, is that limits attention to objects we can be relatively precise about. But again this difference is ultimately qualitative and not implied by formal propositions. To be clear even when being rigorous we are not in fact able to be completely precise. There is always a broader context in which, what in reality we apply is the concept of functional certainty, which we just call certainty.

[naimulhaq]

Linguistic logic/syntax and mathematical logic are different. Godel proved incompleteness of mathematical proof based on linguistic logic like the liar paradox, never proved mathematical incompleteness or undecidability.
Linguistic logic is based on infinite axiom, while mathematical algorithm is based on finite axioms.