It was August 1900 in Paris. David Hilbert (18621943), one of the best-known mathematicians of his time (right), posed a list of twenty-three open problems.
The impact was huge; much of the mathematical research of the dawning century was consumed by Hilberts problems. Nobel Prize winners, Fields medalists, and winners of other prestigious awards were among those who worked to solve them. Some of them (the Riemann hypothesis, for instance) remain unsolved. Large sums of money are offered for a successful solution.
Nineteen hundred was felt to be a significant year. The Dark Ages were past; the Enlightenment had come. The Scientific Revolution had brought progress. God was dead, now the Superman (Friedrich Nietzsches bermensch) lived. The universe, with its infinite history, did not require a God. Darwin had proposed a mechanism through which all biological species have merely emerged.
The twentieth century was shaping up to be promising, the beginning of a new age in which man would take his destined position, far from the noise of all those meaningless myths. Reason should be able to explain all things. Each event should have a natural explanation for its occurrence. Every proposition should be subject to a logical explanation to verify its truth value. If every new year brought the happiness and hope of a new beginning, how much more must a new century bring! And how much more must the twentieth century, the first truly Modern century, promise! No wonder prominent mathematicians tackled the problems with such fervor.
In a way, their optimism was understandable, if not justified by events. Not even Hilbert could escape the enthusiasm of the times. Two of his twenty-three problems, the second and the sixth, reflected the modern aspiration to subject everything to human reason. The second problem aimed to prove that the axioms of arithmetic were consistent that is, the axioms of the natural numbers do not lead to any contradictions. The sixth problem aimed to axiomatize physics, particularly probability and mechanics.
The sixth problem conveys Hilberts modern heart: physics should be subjected to cold reason; even chance must submit to reason! Mathematics, the most rigorous way of knowing, should extend itself beyond abstraction to dominate chance and physical reality.
He put the matter this way when he posed the second problem:
When we are engaged in investigating the foundations of a science, we must set up a system of axioms which contains an exact and complete description of the relations subsisting between the elementary ideas of that science. The axioms so set up are at the same time the definitions of those elementary ideas; and no statement within the realm of the science whose foundation we are testing is held to be correct unless it can be derived from those axioms by means of a finite number of logical steps
But above all I wish to designate the following as the most important among the numerous questions which can be asked with regard to the axioms: To prove that they are not contradictory, that is, that a finite number of logical steps based upon them can never lead to contradictory results.
Hilbert was a modern man, no doubt about it. He wanted all of scientific knowledge to be obtained from basic axioms by means of a finite number of logical steps. His goal was an extension of his particular dream for mathematics, the eponymous Hilberts programto establish a consistent and complete finite number of axioms as a foundation of all mathematical theories. The goal was of cardinal importance to him. On his gravestone at Gttingen, you will find inscribed the words:
We must know. We will know. (Wir mssen wissen Wir werden wissen)
That epitaph on the gravestone (image by Kassandro, CC-BY-SA-3.0) was his response to the Latin maxim ignoramus et ignorabimus (we do not know, we shall not know), a dictum of the German physiologist Emil du Bois-Reymond from a speech given at the Prussian Academy of Sciences in which du Bois-Reymond argued that there were questions that neither science nor philosophy could aspire to answer.
Seen from the perspective of the age (what C. S. Lewis has called the climate of opinion), Hilberts aspiration was understandable. The two World Wars had not happened yet; science had not been used to create biological weapons; no one knew that the twentieth century would become the bloodiest in history; progress and industrialization had not caused widely noticed environmental issues; the Left had not founded its Gulag and the Right had not built its Auschwitz.
These events (and some others) overthrew modern aspirations in the way the rolling stone in the vision of Daniel broke the statue with feet of clay into pieces. (Dan 2:34) And in all of these events, the problem was easily singled out the human being. It is impossible to make a superman out of a man. Enlightened modernity, blinded by pride, failed to see what all religions, even the oldest and the false ones, have seen so clearlythat man is wicked and the intention of his thoughts is only evil continuously, that from the sole of his foot even to the head there is nothing sound in him, that mans heart is deceitful more than any other thing. (See Jer. 17:9) In brief, the problem of man is nothing other than himself.
Thus, the practical problem of modernity turned out to be man himselfand it was devastating. But the conceptual problem was still to come and it was equally devastating to modern aspirations.
On Monday, September 8, 1930, Hilbert opened the annual meeting of the Society of German Scientists and Physicians in Knigsberg with a famous discourse called Logic and the knowledge of nature. He ended with these words:
For the mathematician there is no Ignorabimus, and, in my opinion, not at all for natural science either
The true reason why [no-one] has succeeded in finding an unsolvable problem is, in my opinion, that there is no unsolvable problem. In contrast to the foolish Ignorabimus, our credo avers: We must know, We shall know.
In one of those ironies of history, during the three days prior to the conference opened by Hilberts speech, a joint conference called Epistemology of the Exact Sciences also took place in Knigsberg. On Saturday, September 6, in a twenty-minute talk, Kurt Gdel (19061978) presented his incompleteness theorems. On Sunday 7, at the roundtable closing the event, Gdel announced that it was possible to give examples of mathematical propositions that could not be proven in a formal mathematical axiomatic system even though they were true.
The result was shattering. Gdel showed the limitations of any formal axiomatic system in modeling basic arithmetic. He showed that no axiomatic system could be complete and consistent at the same time.
What does it mean for an axiomatic system to be complete? It means that, using the axioms given, it is possible to prove all of the propositions concerning the system. What does it mean for the axiomatic system to be consistent? It means that its propositions do not contradict themselves. In other words, the system is complete if (using the axioms) all proposition in the system can be proven either true or false. The system is consistent if (using the axioms) no proposition in the system can be proved simultaneously true and false.
In simple terms, Gdels first incompleteness theorem says that no consistent formal axiomatic system is complete. That is, if the system does not have propositions that are true and false simultaneously, there are other propositions that cannot be proven either true or false. Moreover, such propositions are known to be true but they cannot be proven using the system axioms. There are true propositions of the system that cannot be proven as such, using the axioms of the system.
Gdels second incompleteness theorem is more stringent. It says that no consistent axiomatic system can prove its own consistency. In the end, his theorem entails that we cannot know whether a system is consistent or not; we can only assume that it is.
Lets recall a portion of Hilberts statement of his second problem: [N]o statement within the realm of the science whose foundation we are testing is held to be correct unless it can be derived from those axioms by means of a finite number of logical steps.
Hilbert knew the difference between science and mathematics, of course. So this introduction to his second problem actually fits well to his sixth problemto axiomatize science. In this regard, his sixth problem is more ambitious than the second one because it purports to translate to sciencebeyond mathematicswhat mathematics should be doing at least in Hilberts mind. But inasmuch as Hilbert was broadening his concepts to take in science as well as mathematics, it was of particular importance that his statement be true of mathematics. The word science should be replaceable by the word mathematics: [N]o statement within the realm of the mathematics whose foundation we are testing is held to be correct unless it can be derived from those axioms by means of a finite number of logical steps.
But Gdels first incompleteness theorem voids such a statement. There are indeed true mathematical propositions that cannot be derived from a finite number of axioms through a finite number of logical steps. Mathematics, our best way of knowing, the one we consider the most certain, is, in the most optimistic case, incomplete!
But even this is not the end of the matter. Returning to Hilberts presentation of his second problem, note what he says in his second paragraph:
Above all I wish to designate the following as the most important among the numerous questions which can be asked with regard to the axioms: To prove that they are not contradictory, that is, that a finite number of logical steps based upon them can never lead to contradictory results.
Well, Gdels second incompleteness theorem destroys this statement too. Because it proves the opposite: no consistent formal axiomatic system can prove its own consistency. If Hilberts program is the Titanic, Gdels incompleteness theorems are the iceberg that sunk it.
Moreover, Gdels first incompleteness theorem throws Comtes positivism into the trash and it does the same with todays scientism. There are indeed true statements that are beyond mathematics and science.
Gdels second incompleteness theorem is a source of hopelessness to a rationalist viewpoint. If no consistent formal system can prove its own consistency, the consequences are devastating for whomever has placed his trust in human reason.
Why? Because provided the system is consistent, we cannot know it is; and if it is not, who cares? The highest we can reach is to assume (which is much weaker than to know) that the system is consistent and to work under such assumption. But we cannot prove it; that is impossible!
In the end, the most formal exercise in knowledge is an act of faith. The mathematician is forced to believe, absent all mathematical support, that what he is doing has any meaning whatsoever.
The logician is forced to believe, absent all logical support, that what he is doing has any meaning whatsoever.
Some critics might point out that there are ways to prove the consistency of a system, provided we subsume it into a more comprehensive one. That is true. In such a case, the consistency of the inner system would be proved from the standpoint of the outer system. But a new application of Gdels second incompleteness theorem tells us that this bigger system cannot prove its own consistency. That is, to prove the consistency of the first system requires a new step of faith in the bigger one. Moreover, because the consistency of the first system depends on the consistency of the second onewhich cannot be proved there is more at stake if we accept the consistency of the second one. And suppose there is a third system which comprehends the second one and proving that it is consistent. Faith is all the more necessary if we are to believe that the third system is also consistent. In such a system, faith does not disappear. It only compounds, making itself bigger and more relevant in order to sustain all that it is supporting.
In the end, we do not know whether the edifice we are building will be consistent; we do not have the least idea. We just hope it will be, and we must believe it will be in order to continue doing mathematics. Faith is the most fundamental of the mathematical tools.
The question is not whether we have faith, the question is what is the object of our faith. It is the rationality of mathematics what is at stake here, its meaning. But we cannot appeal to mathematics to prove its meaning. Thus, Platonic reality, given its existence, does depend on a bigger and more comprehensive reality, one beyond what is reasonable, one that is the Reason itself.
The ambition to know all things is nothing more than a statement on a gravestone.
Even though for years I have enjoyed applying analytical philosophy to Christian apologetics, these and other considerations have led me to question that approach. At this point, I dont see that it creates a clear advantage. Instead, I see it as a concession to the unbeliever in order to lead him to question his own faith and place it instead in Christ.
It is sad to see that many a Christian apologist has placed his faith in logic, not in the Logos. At the end of the day, logic does not prove anything because it is grounded in unprovable propositions. It is impossible to use Aristotelian logic to prove Aristotelian logic. It begs the question; to accept it requires faith. Axioms are undemonstrable by definition and, as theory develops, they become less and less intuitive. To accept them requires faith. Similarly, the consistency of any formal axiomatic system cannot be proven, to accept it requires faith. All of our knowledge is sustained by faith. All of it.
Sustaining faith in reason, besides making for a cheap faith, constitutes an unacceptable abdication to rationalism because reason and logic cannot sustain anything. They cannot even support themselves. Moreover, in order for faith and reason to have a foundation, not merely from an epistemological viewpoint but also from an ontological one, there must be something that sustains it a First Sustainer undergirding them all.
There is no logic without a Logos. Faiths only task is to accept that such a Logos does exist. The opposite is despair, meaninglessness. With this in mind, John 1:1-4 14, and Colossians 1:15-17 are illuminated by a wonderful light.
Go here to see the original:
- 'She was impressed by the rationalism of Judaism': Celebrities with surprising religious backgrounds - Yahoo Lifestyle UK - April 2nd, 2024 [April 2nd, 2024]
- "I think, Therefore I Am", What Does This Descartes Quote Mean? - Exploring your Mind - January 7th, 2024 [January 7th, 2024]
- Jacek Tabisz on Humanism and Rationalism in Polish Society - The Good Men Project - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Labor icon Bill Hayden to be honoured at state funeral - Yahoo News Australia - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Thom Workman explores the roots of the war on science - NB Media Co-op - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Did the Enlightenment lead to the climate crisis? | Aviva Chomsky - IAI - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Exeter University to Offer Degree in Magic - Redbrick - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- How Apple TV's 'Lessons in Chemistry' compares to the novel - The Spokesman Review - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Rupture and Reconstruction: A Koan About Zen Itself Berggruen ... - Berggruen Institute - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Adamu Fika and persona of the old-school remarkable bureaucrat - Tribune Online - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Craig Newmark Retired from Craigslist. Now He Wants to Save ... - Observer - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Is the US turning into a Christofascist state? - The Real News Network - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Designer John Heffernan reinvented Aston Martin and Bentley with ... - Classic Driver - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Empiricism and Rationalism: How Immanuel Kant Changed History - January 6th, 2023 [January 6th, 2023]
- What Is Surrealism? | Artsy - December 28th, 2022 [December 28th, 2022]
- Rationalism vs. Empiricism | Concepts, Differences & Examples - Video ... - November 23rd, 2022 [November 23rd, 2022]
- Rationalist Judaism: Anti-Rationalism and the Charedi Vote - November 23rd, 2022 [November 23rd, 2022]
- Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia - November 23rd, 2022 [November 23rd, 2022]
- Nizari Isma'ilism - Wikipedia - October 21st, 2022 [October 21st, 2022]
- Jewish philosophy - Wikipedia - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- Humanism - Wikipedia - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- Word of God and Work of God - Kashmir Observer - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- [Renaissance, Science and God: Paradox of Modern Western EducationVII] Individualism and Decline of the West - Greater Kashmir - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- Exciting Puranic and Siddhantic Cosmology Conference | ISKCON News - ISKCON News - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- How red voracity will be used and thrown in West: The Communism of errors - MyVoice - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- Words Mean Things: 'Decolonization' - The Swaddle - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- When Lancashire was rocked by a 2.9 magnitude earthquake the last time fracking came to town - Lancs Live - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- On the brink: How yesterday's fears can help us move through today's war - OnlySky - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- Rationalism: What Is It and How to Apply It To Everyday Life? - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- Rationalism - The Decision Lab - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- Rationalism - Teachmint Explanation and Meaning| - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- Martin Scorsese: rinse and repeat self-indulgence | Sean Egan - The Critic - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- The Origin Review - LFF 2022 - HeyUGuys - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- No, Critical Race Theory Isn't About Teaching That 'Slavery Is Real' - The Federalist - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- The Journey of the Holy Shroud of Turin - National Catholic Register - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- Bengal's Tryst With Alternative Readings Of The Ramayana - Outlook India - October 2nd, 2022 [October 2nd, 2022]
- Warm and minimal: Riverview Courtyard House - Architecture AU - October 2nd, 2022 [October 2nd, 2022]
- Philosophy of social science - Wikipedia - September 29th, 2022 [September 29th, 2022]
- Expanding open access to scientific knowledge and discussion - EurekAlert - September 29th, 2022 [September 29th, 2022]
- Rome & the World: Italys elections and the Church Etienne Gilson 40 years after his death - Aleteia - September 29th, 2022 [September 29th, 2022]
- Liz Truss and the rise of the libertarian right - The New Statesman - September 29th, 2022 [September 29th, 2022]
- Debate: Theres Anger at AMU Dropping Maududi, Qutb. But Why is Sir Syeds Islam Not Taught? - The Wire - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- My Say: Allowing corruption is a greater danger than corruption itself - The Edge Markets MY - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- 'Date Me' Google Docs and the Hyper-Optimized Quest for Love - WIRED - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- Advaita: Beyond monotheism and polytheism - Times of India - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- Looming threats to Pakistans integrity - Global Village space - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- Florence Pugh and Sebastin Lelio on the Battle Between Religion and Science in The Wonder - IndieWire - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- How Affirmative Action Was Derailed by Diversity - The Chronicle of Higher Education - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- What's the Issue with Classical Liberalism and Religion? - Independent Institute - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- Evidently, Biden Does Not Know About the False Positive Risk ... - Substack - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- The Jewish and Intellectual Origins of this Famously Non-Jewish Jew - Jewish Journal - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- Culture, progress and the future: Can the West survive its own myths? - Salon - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- William Brooks: From Western Traditions to Political Indoctrination: A Cultural History of Education - The Epoch Times - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- Attack On Salman Rushdie Manifests Barbarism In The Name Of Religion: Taslima Nasrin - Outlook India - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- Britain doesnt need a public holiday to remember the slave trade - The Spectator - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- Manny Montes: Origins of critical theory - The Union - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Overcoming the Aryan-Dravidian divide - The Hindu - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Kid Stuff: Why Have Artists Been So Drawn to Childrens Books? - ARTnews - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- The Surprising Religious Diversity of America's 13 Colonies - History - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- 'It destroys your soul' - the human toll of war - New Zealand Herald - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Edinburgh University is learning the hard way that there's a price to pay for going woke - The Telegraph - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Aquinas and the State - The American Conservative - July 13th, 2022 [July 13th, 2022]
- Jordan Peterson is wrong about the postmodernists - Spiked - July 13th, 2022 [July 13th, 2022]
- Had been staying in India since 2015 with a fake passport, voter ID and driving license: Bangladeshi Faisal Ahmed arrested for the murder of Hindu... - July 13th, 2022 [July 13th, 2022]
- The Liberation of the Arabs From the Global Left - Tablet Magazine - July 13th, 2022 [July 13th, 2022]
- Roe v. Wade in the dustbin of history - The Spectator Australia - June 30th, 2022 [June 30th, 2022]
- What is Rationalism? | Rationalism Philosophy & Examples - Video ... - June 29th, 2022 [June 29th, 2022]
- Hume's Fork Explained - Fact / Myth - June 29th, 2022 [June 29th, 2022]
- Is it time for the dream of North Sydney Bears' long-awaited return to finally become a reality? | Sam Perry - The Guardian - June 29th, 2022 [June 29th, 2022]
- It's the economy, stupid - The Spectator Australia - June 1st, 2022 [June 1st, 2022]
- Jon Ronson: In 2008 Graham Linehan told me 'Join Twitter, the place where no one fights' - The Irish Times - June 1st, 2022 [June 1st, 2022]
- The 50 Most Important People of the Middle Ages - Medievalists.net - June 1st, 2022 [June 1st, 2022]
- New Aussie rules: Conservative values have fallen out of fashion - The Spectator - May 15th, 2022 [May 15th, 2022]
- The week in TV: The Essex Serpent; the Baftas; Fergal Keane: Living With PTSD; Clark - The Guardian - May 15th, 2022 [May 15th, 2022]
- These Iconic Scenes From The X-Files Ask if We Are Alone in the Universe - 25YearsLaterSite.com - May 15th, 2022 [May 15th, 2022]
- Rationalism, Pluralism, and Fear in the Speech Debate - Liberal Currents - April 20th, 2022 [April 20th, 2022]
- After School Satan Club rejected by Northern York School Board vote - PennLive - April 20th, 2022 [April 20th, 2022]
- 12 Reader Views on Where America Is Going Wrong - The Atlantic - April 20th, 2022 [April 20th, 2022]
- Bicentenary Year of Mirat-ul-Akhbar: Indias Pioneering Persian Newspaper that Embodied Resistance - NewsClick - April 20th, 2022 [April 20th, 2022]
- The illusion of evidence based medicine - The BMJ - March 18th, 2022 [March 18th, 2022]