Kurt Gödel: A Contradiction in the U.S. Constitution‎

http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/

by Jebdm • 18 years ago

35 28 18 years ago

morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com

Jebdm2• 18 years ago

Morgenstern's descriptions of Einstein and Gödel are neat to read. Gödel seems really naive, and Einstein is a bit meaner than I would've imagined.

asnyder• 18 years ago

Not so much naive, as crazy.

newt03114• 18 years ago

Interesting question: who was smarter, Einstien or Godel. Admittedly, Einstein is much better known but consider their insights: Einstein had the insight that acceleration and gravity were manifestations of the same phenomenae and could be modeled by curvature of space. Godel had the insight that all sufficiently complex mathematical systems are incomplete. As an (aspiring) mathematician, I find the latter to be much more profound.

fizx2• 18 years ago

But did Gödel have an Annus Mirabilis? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_Papers )

In one year, Einstein wrote four papers that individually could have won Nobel Prizes. Perhaps Gödel's revelation was more profound. But was Gödel smarter? I doubt it, at least using impressiveness of accomplishments as a proxy for intelligence.

whacked_new3• 18 years ago

Impressiveness of accomplishments measures the impressiveness of accomplishments. Not intelligence.

With that logic you might infer that Brin and Page are at the apex of programming ability.

ShardPhoenix• 18 years ago

There have probably been many people who were smarter than either but didn't accomplish as much for one reason or another.

alain94040• 18 years ago

It can't possibly matter which one is smarter. We need more of those, that's it.

It helps if the media will portray either as a hero or role model for kids. So in that regard, Einstein was more of a success. Those guys started vocations. There is an exponential effect when your life inspires people generation after generation.

trominos2• 18 years ago

Just because one thing's more abstract than another doesn't make it more profound.

newt03114• 18 years ago

I would argue that it does. More abstract concepts often (and especially in this case) elucidate a concept with wider application. General relativity gives us insight into a possible model of our universe. Godel's incompleteness theorem gives us insight into all complex axiomatic systems in all possible universes. The difference is definitely there and an argument can be made (up to senses of aesthetics) that one is better than the other.

whacked_new3• 18 years ago

The more you study intelligence, the more you realize that "smart" is such a vague concept that it is borderline useless.

Example: whose work was more difficult to understand? Godel's work came "naturally" to Godel; Einstein's came "naturally" to Einstein. They are both "unnatural" for most people. That says nothing about smartness, aside of that both are capable of something that most are not.

Next question: was Godel better at math than Einstein was at physics? My answer is "... huh?"

ars• 18 years ago

>As an (aspiring) mathematician, I find the latter to be much more profound.

I'm not surprised. People usually find their own subject more <fill in the blank>.

I think you also don't realize how profound Einsteins relativity is. It's a lot more than acceleration and gravity (even if that's how it starts), the implications change an immense amount of stuff.

That's why people find their own subject more compelling - they understand it more completely.

gcanyon• 18 years ago

Summary of what I think this says (it's really long, in several posts, and I only skimmed): we don't know what the supposed contradiction was that Godel found in the Constitution.

jsomers• 18 years ago

Presumably it has something to do with an amendment that prevents future amendments, or gives that right to a single person (dictator).

Jebdm2• 18 years ago

According to http://blog.plover.com/law/Godel-dictatorship-2.html :

"Apparently, the "inconsistency" noted by Gödel is simply that the Constitution provides for its own amendment. Suber says: 'He noticed that the AC had procedural limitations but no substantive limitations; hence it could be used to overturn the democratic institutions described in the rest of the constitution.'"

ensignavenger4• 18 years ago

The Founders warned of several ways that America could be turned into a Dictatorship. Washington warned against political parties, calling them a form of despotism, which would, if left unchecked, lead to a worst form of despotism.

John Adams warned of the people voting to gain "wanton pleasures, the capricious will" and how that would cause a decay into anarchy.

As far as contradiction goes, there a a few areas that the Constitution is rather vague. The place that comes to mind is the conditions under which a President can suspend Habeas Corpus. Does Congress need to declare a national emergency first? Or can the President do this himself? The Constitution does not provide much guidance on the federal courts. This is also an area where we must be vigilant- to ensure that activist judges don't take over our country.

Other than a few areas of vagueness coupled with the fact that freedom requires a virtuous and moral people (Washington and Adams), who are ever vigilant in the defense of freedom, I don't know of any outright contradictions in the Constitution. I suppose that is why it is part of the reason for it being amendable- so that future generations can give further guidance to their servants in government. (Which, in itself, could lead our nation into despotism).

Anyone who thinks that America could never turn into a dictatorship is fooling themselves, and would be wise to remain vigilant for freedoms sake.

rw• 18 years ago

> "... decay into anarchy."

Anarchy != chaos. Pet peeve #472.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

jhawk28• 18 years ago

Anarchy != chaos in Utopia.

newt03114• 18 years ago

Valid point as that is, I don't think thats what Godel was talking about. I am trying to work through tthe constitution. I think the source of dictatorial authority will be either Article 1 section 2 clause 1 and Article 2 section 1 clause 2 (along with some other pripheral ones) or through the judiciary using Article 3 but this needs a lot more work on my part. Its a nice pet project.

ensignavenger4• 18 years ago

As I mentioned, Article 3 is one of the most likely. I don't know how the other two references you cited could be a problem. If you'd like to email me (jlv at ensigntech.com) I'd be most interested in your theories.

helveticaman• 18 years ago

> Anyone who thinks that America could never turn into a dictatorship is fooling themselves, and would be wise to remain vigilant for freedoms sake.

Yeah, but recent developments lead me to think we'll have a 15-year dead cat's bounce on the decline to serfdom, and I have another passport, so...

...yeah...

patrickas• 18 years ago

Mark Jason Dominus wrote about this a couple of years back at http://blog.plover.com/law/Godel-dictatorship.html and http://blog.plover.com/law/Godel-dictatorship-2.html then again here http://blog.plover.com/law/Godel-dictatorship-3.html

Kurt Gödel: A Contradiction in the U.S. Constitution‎

Related Stories