"Anyone encouraged to talk at great length will eventually reveal himself as inconsistent, foolish, or mistaken."
That's a line from David Mamet's The Disenlightenment. I'm sure he didn't have Gödel in mind when he wrote it, but it's a very Gödelian thing to say, because language eventually exhausts itself in trying to be both consistent and complete. Cracks appear, followed by foolishness and absurdity.
This is because of a permanent tension between absolute consistency and complete comprehensiveness. In order to maintain perfect consistency, one inevitably excludes certain aspects of reality, rendering the model incomplete. Conversely, trying to be all-encompassing necessarily introduces contradictions or ambiguities in the effort to account for diverse or paradoxical phenomena.
Foolishness and absurdity come into play as a result of ad hoc attempts to patch over the cracks. Arguments become increasingly stretched, convoluted, and even nonsensical in order to maintain the illusion of consistency and completeness. Inconvenient truths are attacked or dismissed (often with pre-emptive contempt) while reasoning contracts to an impenetrable closed circle.
And now you understand the left.
Yes, but this post is not about politics.
What is it about, then?
I guess it's about -- or going to be about -- the book we were discussing yesterday, Plato's Revenge: The New Science of the Immaterial Genome. Although the book doesn't make this argument directly, it seems to me that we needn't be biologists to know with certainty that Darwinism is neither complete nor consistent; or, to the extent that it tries to be one, it cannot be the other.
For starters, Darwinism is a closed system that presumes a closed cosmos, but what in the system justifies this presumption? Recall a passage from yesterday's post:
Gödel was confident that we can know certain unprovable axioms, but he was able to demonstrate that such knowledge arrives mysteriously, from outside the axiomatic system (emphasis mine).
There is nothing in Darwinism that accounts for anything arriving mysteriously from outside genetic-environmental interaction, but here it is. We (Homo sapiens) are not in genetic Kansas anymore, rather, have escaped into a transcendental Ozscape that cannot be reduced to our DNA. Trying to cram this transcendent space into the immanent genome is precisely what results in the foolishness and inconsistency referenced above.
Theoretical biologist Robert Rosen claims that Gödelian paradoxes are a symptom of "trying to solve problems in too limited a universe of discourse" (in Klinghoffer).
In other words, instead of hunkering down into a defensively closed system, they ought to open the metaphysical windows and allow some some vertical air and light to stream into the cave. Which it is going to do anyway, so you might as well acknowledge it.
The standard, conventional "universe of discourse"... was far too narrow. The more capacious sort of discourse needed, it seems, would not exclude Plato's conception of transcendent ideas being involved in forming life.
Perhaps such a perspective isn't strictly scientific. Rather, it only renders science strictly conceivable and logically possible.
Is it even possible that the metaphysical buck stops with DNA? Sternberg (the subject of this book) doesn't think so; rather, he suggests that it is indeed "a very interesting, information-rich storage medium," but "one that is being operated by something else -- something using DNA."
Who might that be?
I don't know, but why not keep an open mind before declaring there's no God and DNA is him?
The computations in life can't be purely physical. Therefore that leaves the spiritual, perhaps even the supernatural. What else shall we call it when it transcends the limits of our natural world? I'm open to suggestions but no alternative occurs to me. I also don't see an alternative to calling it eerie....
Somehow, the infinite, or some order of infinity, is operating in each finite life, and each finite cell within it.
Of course it is. There is O, which is to say the total cosmic area rug encompassing vertical and horizontal, transcendent and immanent, part and whole, subject and object, etc., and within which blow the winds of (↑) and (↓).
In Sternberg's thinking, it is the presence of a transcendent infinity, necessitated by the issue of transcomputationality, that seems to be what calls the immaterial genome into being.... arguments such as those proffered by a standard materialist are simply not true and they cannot be true.
One can of course try to force them to be true, but you know what they say: "Anyone encouraged to talk at great length will eventually reveal himself as inconsistent, foolish, or mistaken."
The central element is a cube, rigid and seemingly made of solid, conventional blocks, which represents a closed system, a limited universe of discourse, or a fixed philosophical/scientific paradigm (like the idea of a purely materialist or Darwinian worldview you discussed). Cubes symbolize structure, order, and containment, but also potential rigidity and confinement.
The cracks and fissures visible on its surface, and especially where pieces are breaking away at the top and sides, symbolize the "logical cracks," "inconsistencies," and "limitations" that appear when such a closed system is pushed to be both consistent and complete. It shows the inherent strain and ultimate failure of trying to force a comprehensive understanding within too narrow a framework.
The Cosmos and the Light Beyond
As the cube breaks open, it reveals a vast, starry cosmos, infinite light, and an ethereal, transcendent landscape. This represents:
The "outside the axiomatic system": It's the knowledge, truth, or reality that cannot be contained or explained by the rigid, internal logic of the closed system.
Completeness and Comprehensiveness: The boundless nature of the cosmos signifies the complete reality that a limited system inevitably excludes in its pursuit of consistency.
Transcendence and the Immaterial: The ethereal light and infinite space directly relate to the "vertical air and light," "transcendent ideas," "immaterial genome," and the "spiritual/supernatural" elements you discussed. It suggests a dimension beyond purely physical or reducible computation.
Fresh Perspective: The light also symbolizes new understanding, revelation, and the "opening up its windows and ceiling" to a more "capacious sort of discourse."
The Overall Message
The image, therefore, is a visual metaphor for your central argument: that attempts to define and contain all of reality within overly rigid, closed systems are destined to break down. The breakdown isn't a failure, but rather a necessary precursor to perceiving a larger, more profound, and ultimately more truthful reality that incorporates elements beyond the material or the strictly definable. It suggests that true understanding requires acknowledging and embracing the transcendent, the infinite, and the "mysterious" that lies beyond our immediate grasp.
