Saya forward sejumlah komentar, yang menurut saya menarik dari sudut pandang ilmuwan, karena menyebut beberapa konsep ilmiah dalam kaitan hal Allah. Silakan melanggan gratis sendiri masing-masing, jika berminat; dalam rangka memperluas wawasan kita. Salam, A Rusli 27 Mar 99 >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 >Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 22:41:55 -0500 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Billy Grassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Meta 060: Loom of God: Goedel's Proof Revisited > >Meta 060. 3/24/99 Approximately 2068 words. > >Clifford Pickover's posting of the Goedel's "Proof of God's Existence" drew a >lot of responses from Meta readers (see Meta 056). Some wondered about the >source. The information is taken from Wang, Hao. (1987) _Reflections on Kurt >Goedel_, MIT Press: Mass, (page 195). What Goedel's "Proof" really means is >another question > >Dan Berger writes from Bluffton, OH to note that Goedel's proof is a variation >on St. Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence. George Sargent >writes to note that within Goedel's Proof, we might just as easily assume a >negative property for being God-like. John Brink writes from Worcester, MA to >suggest that "what Goedel seems to have proven is that God is immanent without >inclusion of the transcendant component of His universality." Sarah Voss is >also back with a discussion of revelation, poetry, logic, and mathematics. >Stan Tenen checks in to suggest that a mathematical proof of God is >"unsatisfying, unsophisticated and futile." Finally, V.V. Raman is back to >also argue against rationalizing God. Raman writes that: > >"The future of religions lies, in my view, not in hanging on to the coat-tails >of empirical science for proof, respect, and recognition, but in appreciating >the value and significance of transrational experiences and insights in matters >spiritual, and in conceding the fallibility and finitude of the human mind when >confronting the Infinite." > >On other business: I want to apologize for the gaps and goofs over the last >week. I continue to have technical problems with our listserv software. We >are in the process of up-grading, so I hope to be able to roll out a better >service in a few weeks. As a result of these technical problems, I have fallen >behind on the many wonderful messages waiting to be posted. I'll hope to work >through this backlog in the next week. Thanks for your patience and >understanding. > >-- Billy Grassie > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >From: "Dan Berger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Meta 056: The Loom of God: Goedel's Proof > >Goedel's proof is a version of St. Anselm's ontological argument: "God = >supreme perfection; existence is a necessary aspect of perfection; therefore >God exists." I can't imagine that Prof. Pickover isn't aware of that, yet I >don't see a nickel's worth of difference between Anselm and Goedel.I respond >emotively to this argument; I think Anselm was trying to reduce real, mystical >experience to formal logic. Nevertheless, I believe the ontological argument is >generally agreed to be the weakest of the classic formal arguments for God's >existence. > >I haven't finished reading the series of discussions with Prof. Pickover, so I >can't yet respond more fully. > >Daniel J. Berger |PH 419-358-3379 >Assoc Prof of Chemistry|FX 419-358-3323 >Bluffton College | >Bluffton OH 45817-1196|[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >From: "George A. Sargeant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Meta 056: The Loom of God: Goedel's Proof > >I've heard of Goedel's proof before, but this is the first time I've ever seen >it. In all honesty, it looks like a rehashed version of the ontological >argument. It isn't clear whether the terms "positive" and "negative" refer to >numbers or to good and evil. If the latter is the case, we could just as easily >assume that being God-like is a negative property. > >Thanks, >George > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >From: JERRY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: <RE: Meta 056 Goedel's proof of God> > >I have been a subscriber to the META network since its inception on 10/1/97 and >have indulged myself euphorically in the intellectual magnificence of the >dialog in science, philosophy and theology that it has provided. When I read >Larry Pickovers presentation of Goedels "proof" of Gods existence (Meta 056 on >3/18/99) I felt that there had to be a premise (axiom) that is dependant on >ones definition of God which may or may not be true yet logically and >mathematically provable. > >Goedels 2nd axiom seems to contain the limited statement that a positive >property is the only property that God can have and leads to his definition >that --"something is God-like only if it possesses all positive properties". If >this is so then it places a restriction on God since any negative properties >could not be considered a part of Gods universality and hence his proof is >merely a derivation of a premise that has partial meaning. It reminds me of the >Andrew Wiles proof of Fermats last theorem that was widely heralded several >years ago but was found to be incomplete until Wiles subsequently proved the >Shimura-Tamiyama conjecture which verified the theorem. We can only prove Gods >existence if we know all the parameters that define God and if we did the we >would be God and have no need to prove our own existence. What Goedel seems to >have proven is that God is immanent without inclusion of the transcendant >component of His universality. > >John Brink, PhD >Prof of Biochemistry Emeritus >Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610 ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >From: Sarah Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Meta 056: The Loom of God: Goedel's Proof > >To Billy Grassie, Clifford Pickover, and the MetaList in general: > >I've always been a sucker for flattery, so when Clifford Pickover wrote (Meta >056) that "Sarah Voss raised some excellent points in her post to Meta (045) on >the relationship between mathematics and religion," I admit to being hooked. >Just which points did you like best, Clifford? > >As for "I wonder what she thinks this relationship might be fifty years from >now," I can only reiterate that the metaphorical connection between the two >subjects has been around for a long, long time (see *What Number Is God?*) and >it isn't likely to disappear soon. On the other hand, sometimes I have trouble >predicting what's going to happen five minutes from now, let alone fifty years, >so I'll not stick my prophetic neck out too far, thank you. > >However, when it comes to Dr. Pickover's invitation to comment on Goedel's >mathematical proof of God, I'll venture a bias. Personally, I find revelation >more persuasive than logic. Although logic may in fact lead to revelation, it >hasn't ever happened that way for me. I prefer poetry, as in Symbols > >We are the words She writes >by joining cells one to another >as we set letters side by side, form shapes >that stand for meanings rarely understood. > >Like marks that decorate >the sheets of dictionaries, >we hold no weight, bear no substance, >live lives as simple symbols >strung together into lines - >ever-changing colloquialisms >reflecting patterns >we call definitions, and yet > >sometimes we rearrange ourselves >in ways that please Her eye: >sentences in books that charm, >turn abstracts into loved designs >soon viewed as wondrous tales. > > >Michael Guillen (*Five Equations that Changed the World*, p 2) has indicated >that "In the language of mathematics, equations are like poetry." So perhaps I >shouldn't make such a distinction between Goedel's "poetry" and mine. It's all >symbols, anyway. > >Of course both poetry and logic probably most often follow rather than precede >revelation, sort of the way a lot of modern scientific exploration is funded >only after the desired outcome is fairly well-established. Some of the newer >conjectures regarding quantum mathematics and consciousness, such as that >consciousness appears in a kind of "back-action" from some future event to some >past event (see <http://listserv.arizona.edu/lsv/www/quantum-mind.html), may >actually establish credibility for a whole new temporal relationship between >revelation, logic and poetry. That may take time, though - say fifty years or >so - to fully unfold. > >All good will, >Sarah > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >From: Stan Tenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Goedel's Mathematical Proof of God > >Dear Prof. Pickover, > >I have been reading your postings, and those of Sarah Voss, with considerable >interest, and have already communicated with Prof. Voss. I have a couple of >comments. > >1) I think I have an explicit example that confirms Sarah Voss' hypothesis. I >believe that our knowledge of God, a definition of God, and an understanding of >a wide range of Kabbalistic, Sufi, and other mystical texts, can be approached >on the basis of an _explicit_ and extraordinarily elegant geometric metaphor. >You can see what I'm proposing at <http://www.meru.org>, and particularly at ><http://www.meru.org/GodofAbe/onegdpix.html> . > >2) I find Goedel's "Mathematical Proof of God" to be unsatisfying, >unsophisticated, and futile. It seems to me only wordplay to try to create a >"proof of God." Far more useful would be a _definition_ of God. Definitions are >not subject to religious prejudices, and if they are consistent with reality, >they can be very powerful analytic tools. I am proposing that the Abrahamic >discovery was not that there is a God, but rather that "Atman and Brahman are >One." The idea is that there is a transform relationship between the Great >Singularity of consiousness in meditation, and the All-There-Is Wholeness of >the universe. The idea is to define the Inner Single God and the Outer Whole >God as one and the same. This is the equivalent of proposing that consciousness >and physicality are also one and the same. They are complementary, like wave >and particle. (G. Spencer Brown's definition of primary distinction, in his >"Laws of Form," does this job in a modern topological context.) > >There's no need for a Godelian tour-de-force. An appropriate definition does >the job much better. Even though the definition is an abstraction, as it turns >out it leads to meaningful discovery of the Transcendent as a bonus. > >Best regards, >Stan Tenen >------------------------------------------------------ >Meru Foundation http://www.meru.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Meta 056: The Loom of God: Goedel's Proof > >On Mathematical Proofs of God > >It was once alleged that in Catherine of Russia's court in the 18th century, >during on argument with the French philosopher Diderot on the existence or >otherwise of God, the mathematician Euler said something to the effect that [a >+ b^n]/c = d, therefore God exists, and that, unable to decipher the >sophisticated symbolism of the eminent mathematician, the nonplused atheist >Diderot left the court in embarrassment and humiliation. Historians of science >have established that this was merely a story. In any event, that scene has >been repeated in different variations by many people >(scientists/mathematicians) since, but with more seriousness than Euler. > >Riemann tried to establish divine matters through mathematics, as did Goedel. >And Tippler, in his provocative book quoted by Prof Pickover, proved to the >satisfaction of most who could not fathom his learned quotations from >world-scriptures and technical physics that the souls immortality had finally >been established beyond a reasonable doubt. What he illustrated in fact was the >immortality of the debate and the obsession to PROVE GODs existence. > >The statement: "Were theologians to succeed in their attempt to strictly >separate science and religion, they would kill religion," is equivalent to the >declaration that if a person forgets his/her spouses birthday, that would end >their marriage. This may be true in some cases, but cannot be formulated as a >general proposition. The future of religions lies, in my view, not in hanging >on to the coat-tails of empirical science for proof, respect, and recognition, >but in appreciating the value and significance of transrational experiences and >insights in matters spiritual, and in conceding the fallibility and finitude of >the human mind when confronting the Infinite. > >Also, to say that "Theology simply must become a branch of physics if it is to >survive," is as profoundly truthful as the statement that music must become a >branch of Fourier analysis if it is to survive. Such statements arise from the >blind veneration of reason in every dimension of human experience. Thus, the >Proofs of God carefully elaborated by the likes of Spinoza, Tippler, and Goedel >may be interesting for a handful of thinkers acquainted with logic, >mathematics, cosmology or quantum physics, but they really become laughing >stock in the reckoning of those who have experienced God through love or >Nature, scripture or compassion, and above all through the faith that resonates >in the heart. I am all for reason and rationality, but when one waves at me >axioms and theorems, Heisenberg and quantum electrodynamics to convince me that >Moses received the commandments from the Almighty out there in the Middle East, >that Brahma is the one who made the universe, that Jesus was indeed the Son of >God, or that the Archangel Gabriel spoke in Arabic to the Prophet, I am amused, >if not uncomfortable. > >The aesthetic beauty and spiritual grandeur of mathematics are like the >soul-uplifting magnificence of Art, Music, and Poetry. To contrive proofs of >God through them is like using the piano to prove a Euclidean proposition. > >V. V. Raman >March 19, 1999 > > > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >Footer information below last updated: 2/25/1999. > >Meta is an edited and moderated listserver and news service dedicated to >promoting the constructive engagement of science and religion. >Subscriptions are free. For more information, including subscriptions, >archives and submission guidelines, go to <http://www.meta-list.org>. > >If you would like to unsubscribe to Meta at any time, simply "Reply" to >this message with the word "Unsubscribe" in the subject line. We will >promptly disable your subscription. Thanks. > >Please feel free to forward all Meta postings in their entirety including >this notice. It is the intention of the editor that each posting be >protected by copyright as a compilation. Permission is granted only for >duplication and transmission of each message complete and intact including >this paragraph. Otherwise, duplication and/or transmission of any portion >should be guided by "fair use" principles, and explicit permission should >be obtained when needed. Except when permitted by "fair use," permission >to duplicate or transmit any portion written by a contributor must be >obtained from that author. > -Copyright 1997, 1998, 1999. >William Grassie <http://www.voicenet.com/~grassie>. >
