10
$\begingroup$

I was watching this youtube video recently where Gregory Chaitin paraphrases something from one of Gödel's unpublished essays (apparently published now). It is at the 4:48 mark of the video Gregory Chaitin - Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered?

Does anyone know which particular essay Chaitin is referring to? As a pure mathematician I found the whole interview to be fascinating and would like to read more about this from Gödel himself. I did some quick searches from some volumes containing Gödel's essays but did not find these passages.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Gödel's essays are here --- a search for "theology" or "medieval" does not return anything particularly close to a statement that "the only place where medieval theology survives is pure math"; $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 13, 2020 at 23:12
  • $\begingroup$ @CarloBeenakker but that pdf does not seem to be searchable at all $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 14, 2020 at 1:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I OCR'd the pdf, if you drop me a line I can transmit it to you. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 14, 2020 at 8:12

1 Answer 1

12
$\begingroup$

I am quite certain a paraphrase of the quote "the only place where medieval theology survives is pure math", attributed to one of Gödel's essays by Chaitin, does not appear in his collected works (see Vol III: Unpublished essays and lectures). (At least a search for "medieval" and "theology" only returns references to Gödel's ontological proof for the existence of God.)
However, if I understand the question in the OP more generally as an interest in this line of thought of Gödel, then the 1961 essay The modern development of the foundations of mathematics in the light of philosophy develops it as follows:

I would like to attempt here to describe, in terms of philosophical concepts, the development of foundational research in mathematics since around the turn of the century, and to fit it into a general schema of possible philosophical world-views. For this, it is necessary first of all to become clear about the schema itself. I believe that the most fruitful principle for gaining an overall view of the possible world-views will be to divide them up according to the degree and the manner of their affinity to or, respectively, turning away from metaphysics (or religion). In this way we immediately obtain a division into two groups: skepticism, materialism and positivism stand on one side, spiritualism, idealism and theology on the other.
[...]
Now it is a familiar fact, even a platitude, that the development of philosophy since the Renaissance has by and large gone from right to left - not in a straight line, but with reverses, yet still, on the whole. Particularly in physics, this development has reached a peak in our own time. [...] It would truly be a miracle if this (I would like to say rabid) development had not also begun to make itself felt in the conception of mathematics. Actually, mathematics, by its nature as an a priori science, always has, in and of itself, an inclination toward the right, and, for this reason, has long withstood the spirit of the time that has ruled since the Renaissance.

In connection with the topic of Gregory Chaitin's interview, the question whether mathematics is invented or discovered: Gödel was inclined to the latter, and in a 1951 essay Some basic theorems on the foundations of mathematics and their implications cited Hermite: There exists, unless I am mistaken, an entire world consisting of the totality of mathematical truths, which is accessible to us only through our intelligence, just as there exists the world of physical realities; each one is independent of us, both of them divinely created.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ thank you. I never thought about this philosophy before, although it does strike me that when I prove something new it feels like a discovery. I guess I believe in this other reality after all :) $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 15, 2020 at 1:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @bof --- rabid = fanatical (Gödel writes in German and uses the word "rabiate") $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 15, 2020 at 12:38
  • $\begingroup$ @TrevorChase: But that's merely a discovery of a theorem, which is the fact that your chosen foundational system proves the theorem you proved. Whether that theorem represents some actually meaningful truth or not depends on whether meaning can ascribed to your foundational system. Whether that is possible or not for systems on the level of ZFC is on very very shaky ground. On the other hand, bounded ZFC has more plausible meaningfulness... $\endgroup$
    – user21820
    Commented Aug 2, 2021 at 18:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .