Jordan Peterson and Godel

What did he mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Bibliography
youtube.com/watch?v=emLb_XCBFkE
youtube.com/watch?v=RIB05YeMiW8
hooktube.com/watch?v=RIB05YeMiW8
twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/405200126236311554
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Read Spinoza.

>Read Spinoza.
Any of these in particular?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Bibliography

he's going to pull himself out of the swamp by his own beard, you got a problem with that?

>God created the world
>All truth comes from the world he created
>Therefore faith in God is a prerequisite to knowledge of any or all truth

...

>I cant provide any hard evidence so please just believe me pretty please

He meant to say "faith in Godel"

exactly

you have faith in the things that you know

Ethics, 1st and second parts + the reader's guide by Beth Lord since its hard to follow.

similar: for something to be considered a "fact", you have to define what a "fact" is. and your definition of a "fact" will be subjective.

That's awfully circular, Jordan.

I think that's his point

>cannot into irony

I should sleep, huh

What an idiot. That's only the case for deduction!

All non-mathematical knowledge is justified by induction.

He is such a pseudophilosopher. Heart's in the right place about the sjw, postmodern, commie shit though.

Gödel has LITERALLY nothing to do with that, especially he has nothing to do with "prove is only possible with axioms". That statement is one of the pillars of modern mathematics.

It also has nothing to do with god, he only gets involved if you want universal axioms.

Appeal to authority - because he's too stupid to make his own arguments worth listening.

non-mathematicians have no business talking about gödels (in-)completeness proofs and their implications.
It's like "spiritual healers" trying to use quantum mechanics to sell you their healing crystals

THIS

JBP is desperate to inject god into logic

That proves the concept of God, but not our particular God. Christian God is closest to this at the least though.

oh god, he's gone full faggot.

We are god.

youtube.com/watch?v=emLb_XCBFkE

Induction has to be justified by deduction, no?

i don't know why he does these weird sort-of-right-wing spergouts on twitter in fields completely unrelated to clinical psychology

we could definitely use /ourclinicalpsychologist/ to help shed some light on what psychology is useful for and the dangers of its misuse, though i think that most right wing people today acknowledge that mental illness is a real medical issue (not the case 30 years ago, it was simply the sinner's failure to find god or whatever christcuck shit)

he should just stick to interesting psychology redpills, not bloviating about philosophy with solipsist tweets

He's afraid that once people figure out that his framework is just a framework, they might choose a similar, but different framework that's out there waiting for them.

>What did he mean by this?
Objective truth doesn't exist.

Don't bother trying to debate it, you can't.

>Objective truth doesn't exist.
>Don't bother trying to debate it, you can't.
Is this position any more reasonable or a better starting point than solipsism though?

JBPs spergouts are there as example of Yungs animus

Nice quads.

You understood it wrongly.

>be God
>be alone
>want relationships
>make man

>be man
>gain awareness
>see God
>look at me, iGod now

>be other man
>grateful man
>I love you God

>I love you user
>I'll reveal myself to you because you love me

>digits
And what more proof is needed?

I see no evidence of god. I see plenty of evidence on natural laws all around me. So let's take the natural laws as axioms as closely as we can see them work.

Yes, but he's linking it to YHWH. You have to expand the concept of God, to that of the hermeticists.

where is the broofs

Well it's certainly not reasonable but it is the nature of truth, right down at the lowest level. The foundation of reason is a practical compromise.

>Objective truth doesn't exist.
So much for condemning postmodernism.

Nope. Induction is just conjecture and testing.

It gives uncertain knowledge though. Every cogent induction can in principle be overturned by a new experiment.

Attempts to justify induction by deduction fail. See Hume for more on this.

Popper has a good work around with verisimilitude. Here truth content is tied to how much a theory forbids from happening. Truth amount equals empirical content. Modern Physics has more truth than Newtonian Mechanics which has more truth than Aristotelian Physics.

That's about purely objective truth from a fundamental level. If we make a whole bunch of assumptions, which humans naturally do, then based on those assumptions we can talk about objectivity. It's just that if some of those assumptions end up being not true, then we would have to redo all the reasoning.

One of those assumptions is the second law of thermodynamics, for instance.

And can induction be justified by anything whatsoever? Not that it matters, I'll still rely on it.

ATHIEST KEKS BTFO

Ah but you see he is. Postmodernism reaches a logical conclusion and stops, whereas Peterson is going further and trying to integrate it with practical reality.

For example: one can logically assume that they're the only consciousness in existance because there's no evidence to the contrary. One can also, however, reasonably conclude that isn't the case because it's practically irrelevant and also lacks evidence.

Forgot to add: that's where faith comes in.

>What did he mean by this?
That he's way out of his depth when it comes to philosophy.

Loose definition of god

You guys need to know that he considers Logos to be a God.

Charlatan who uses his expertise in one specific area as some sort of justification to speak with confidence on subjects he really knows not that much about.

This tweet is absolutely fucking silly and it could've been remedied by taking an undergraduate mathematics course.

Peterson is incredibly 'postmodern', especially his nuanced readings of Christianity and The Bible, he just uses the term as an umbrella to describe thinkers he doesn't like.

>Sup Forumstards still think God doesnt exist

wake up idiots.

HES NOT A CHRISTIAN
youtube.com/watch?v=RIB05YeMiW8
hooktube.com/watch?v=RIB05YeMiW8

Please stop regarding tidy your room Kermit as any sort of authority.

Through repetition until such a time as a better theory emerges to explain the data generated by empirical observation.

Even then it's not certain knowledge as you get in mathematics. We don't know that spacetime exists the same way we know that 1+1=2.

Nobody says don't trust or believe induction... just dont be certain about it. It is fallible.

he meant that since Gödel proved that a logical system cannot prove itself within itself, at the end of every argument you're going to end up with some like "and I believe in (thing)". for the religious it's God, and for the secular it's usually something like "science" or "the universe". also Peterson is a faggot for literally larping as a Christian even though he denies God and Christ

underrated

had to be a goatfucker

I like it.

No. Not at all. The incompleteness theorems show 1) no consistent systems of axioms who's theorems can be listed by an effective procedure can prove all the truths of a arithmetic of natural numbers (this means that russell and whitehead were wrong in their principia) and 2) that such a system cannot prove itself consistent.

This is LIMITED to deductive proofs of arithmetic and specifically are attacks on formalism.

Peterson is psuedointellectual mystic and he doesn't understand basic epistemology let alone the philosophy of mathematics.

>muh intellectualism

what is this guy even saying?
the gods exist because they exist
you proof sth through the scientific method

The larping as a christian actually is not that uncommon and has some intellectual merit though.

It is downright Piercian. Ethics seem unjustifiable but we need one. Christianity is readymade and has a stable track record. Let's be pragmatists and use it.

Nietzsche didn't care much for it but he likewise lamented the death of God. Nihilism might be the conditions for the return of master morality but this is no guarantee and nihilism is even worse than early slave morality.

Proof is a state of rigorous convincing. But rigorous by whose standards? Take the most static facts you can imagine--the laws of physics. Are even these not malleable, depending on when and were you are in space-time? Proofs then are not unchanging laws; rather, they are attempts at imposing static laws on a non-static universe.
>tl;dr nothing can be proved so rigorously that it satisfies the conditions of a proof, since even the universe's physical laws are subject to change.

>Spinoza
Wasn't that the guy expelled from judaism?

>when you realize Kek is one of God's prophets

>the flying spaghetti monster created the world
>all truth comes from the world he created
>therefore faith in the flying spaghetti monster is a prerequisite to knowledge of any or all truth
Makes just as much sense

>god
>good

Again, an user conflating induction and deduction. 1+1=2 follows deductively from the concept of 1 and the + and = operators.

Physical laws are induced through empirical observation and our understanding of them has changed over time. It would be unthinkable for an Aristotelian for fire to not tend to rise and explain the flight of birds through their elemental composition. We get to physics through experiment and inference to the best explanation of the results then we test again and again until somebody creates a better explanation ad infinitum.

Please please please guys learn some epistemology and formal logic. It will really help sort the bullshit out. Bad arguments only hurt us.

>thinks the socio-eco-politics of Medieval Europe at its most perverse manifestation of human exploitation has anything to do with God
W E W

You need an irrational axiom as a starting block in order to construct...well, order.

God as the source and concept itself of order works fine. No need to go for the conventional understanding of a christian god though
-----ALERT-----
Extreme enlightenment-grade green pill coming
-----ALERT-----

Still this is a "minor" god. The true God would be Void=Consciousness, as the Buddhists say. Then God used a proverbial sock puppet on his "hand" and looked at itself. This God Object (as opposed to God Subject, Consciousness) is the God we refer to as Everything, Demiurge, etc. (not in a bad way) The whole, infinite set of potentially existing or conceivable things.

-When you want to trascend upwards, it becomes a hindrance known as Demiurge.
-When it "forgets" and disconnects from Consciousness, it's Lucifer, the Pride, the Most Beautiful Being, the one who wants to usurp God.
But it's not bad per se, only when it becomes a hindrance to Consciousness. Otherwise it's the Perfect Playground of God.

And Thus, "The Zero (Consciousness) produced The One (Kether, Wholeness) which produced the Two (Chokmah, dualism, energy), that produced the Third (Binah, all the possible combinations from a primordial duality), and from the Third came the Ten Thousand Things"

Also read Sri Aurobindo, it's the best.

>Bad arguments only hurt us.
So does bad grammar. Wading through your half-assed sentences, I understood that you're trying to point out the difference between induction and deduction in some hand-wavey attempt to say "yeah but we were talking about deduction".

Okay skippy: the way you've defined it, 1+1=2 is a deduction based on our concepts of numbers and operations. If you studied anything above high school math, you'd know that we can define different operators and, if we wish, different numbers. Thus we assign concept to these characters; the deductions we make are therefore grounded in human-made concepts, which may or may not be shared by other humans. Thus, even deduction is flawed if others do not / do not wish to reach your conclusion.

Again, nothing can be proved, even if you set up your axioms, because I as an independent actor can choose to refuse your axioms.

>we have to make the assumption that we exist otherwise our entire reality construction falls apart
okay
>this means if we make the assumption god is real then you'll see da proof
wat

Starting with a NON SEQUITUR! You must have went to York ;).

>brainlet doesn't know about rigid designation

Do you all ever wonder if philosophers are really just fucking with you, saying this kind of incomprehensible shit with a straight face that convinces people to accept it?

...

It comes from incomplete understanding of other disciplines. It is very common in continental philosophy like this Jungian mystic certainly has a soft spot for.

He has completely misinterpretted Godel and applied his criticism of formalist foundations for mathematics to truth claims in toto. This is bonkers and should be disregarded. Peterson should be disregarded except for his quest to uncuck higher ed. We need it friends.

He means all synthetic proposition are fallible. There is no absolute proof. Faith is all that you have. Atheist are as dumb as pig shit.

Fedoras BTFOed.

MUH SOPHISTRY

MUH SKYDADDY

MUH SUBGENIUS IQ

Muh sophistry straw man that God is a male.

Remember to give him you money or he wont give you his ground breaking paragraphs!
If we dont give him our money he won't be able to save the west!!!! I just worked eighty hours so I could give him four hundred monthly who wants to match me in supporting this genius

You can call an "uncaused cause" God or FSM, it doesn't make any difference.

Hahaha fuck off redditor

Godel didn't prove that. Peterson knows nothing about mathematics.

t. mathematician

I dont think he knows about the analytic synthetic distinction. I think he thinks all justification is deductive or that Godel somehow applies to empirical claims.

Axiom is needed to stop the endless circularity of logic, what more could he mean?

Finally! Somebody else agrees.

>t. mathematician
What are your credentials?

Msc at top uni in UK (pure math and theo physics). Paper going through peer review now (concerning discrete geometry and branched coverings), about to start work in robotics company.

God wills it!

he is correct that deduction MUST begin with assumption(s). the fuckup is that in order to have """true"""" deductions you should try to use absolute truisms as the assumptions, where here he goes ahead and assumes god as the truism. classic fuckup

contrast that with pretty much all of maths being deductive from the assumptions that 1) quantity exists 2) quantity is ordered [ie there is a notion of equality, greater and lesser value]

>contrast that with pretty much all of maths being deductive from the assumptions that 1) quantity exists 2) quantity is ordered [ie there is a notion of equality, greater and lesser value]
that's a pretty narrow view of 'all of maths'

in what way? inb4 geometry, algebraic geometry is a thing. sure you can go with geometric assumptions a la the greeks but my point is that you take assumptions that are fundamental and as close to truisms as possible, not "i have faith in god, a totally accepted and uncontroversial starting point to build my conception of truth." the OP tweet is fundamentally flawed

if you really want to assert that the assumptions of quantity both existing and being ordered only let you deduce a narrow slice of math i will say study wildberger and leave it at that

is this real? post link

twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/405200126236311554

jesus christ, I knew you guys were dumb but this is just embarassing

He thinks holding an axiom as true is along the lines of belief in god. Which is of course retarded

The axiom is reality nincompoop.
Does God exist?
Probably, but that's not the axiom we have to use when humanity can use our cognition to study our environment.
Be careful Jordan, you'll start to sound like Kant and Hegel if you don't quit that nonsense.

This is why I referred that other idiotic leaf to the concept of rigid designation. This makes sound deductions possible and provides a foundation for mathematics.

That's 20th century Postmodern philosophy that rejects the validity of Math and science in, what they have stated, is an entirely subjective experience(or sometimes they don't even believe in Subject and Object, only Being and Nothing).
The reason we know mathematics works is because of the results it produces.
It's not arbitrary or ineffectual to the subjective experience as we can put these mathematical result into practice through prediction, architecture, chemistry, literally all science.
The values being true are self evident.

>in what way?
How does
>1) quantity exists 2) quantity is ordered [ie there is a notion of equality, greater and lesser value]
help you deduce things about category theory, topology, set theory, abstract algebra, and all the other mathematics that aren't immediately quantitative?

Matthew 10:33(KJV) - But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

look up the definition of axiom