24/42: Secret History - Kurt Gödel and the Secrets of Genius (and Abstraction)

[@GaryGeckDotCom]

Like if I should start posting again.

[@mrbwatson8081]

Yes please, its important work and it blows my mind :)

[@qwerdbeta]

Hell yeah

[@jibjab839]

Gary please! This series has influenced me so much. It has introduced me to the deepest roots of knowledge. I am 20 and all I wanna do now is study and learn.

[@fromthegroundup271]

Yes, your videos are so appreciate!

[@tedus9773]

5 months ago... you are back! Please continue this series!!!

[@Benjamin-bq7tc]

We're all still patiently waiting to complete your masterpiece.

[@MDSO_Invent]

Just saw your Facebook post from 2023 :D my answer is yesss pleeease omg

[@camelotchimp]

Do you have a link to the post?

[@mubarakvodel5763]

I keep coming back to this video. This is a masterpiece.

[@vascoespañol]

Leibnitz, Godel, Cantor...are you Santa? what a gift, man

[@ChiefClickClack2015]

Excellent new video, Gary!! I've been patiently waiting 3 years for this...I had to do a double-take when I saw a Secret History Godel video uploaded "3 hours ago" by GaryGeckDotCom...well done, buddy - *Absolute*ly Brilliant :)

[@GaryGeckDotCom]

lol

[@avi3681]

I just discovered this series and I'm loving it so far. It's funny because usually when people talk about "secret histories" I tend to expect a quick ride to conspiracy-theory crazy-town, but these videos go in the opposite direction. If anything they show that rationalism and mysticism are compatible without slipping into unwarranted paranoia. Have you looked at the work of the contemporary logician/philosopher Graham Priest? I see him as continuing the Leibniz-Cantor-Gödel line of thinking in logic and philosophy. He goes in some new directions due to his use of paraconsistent logic, and he advocates the idea that there can be true contradictions, which he calls dialethism. So far I've read Priest's books _Beyond the Limits of Thought_ and One, which are both amazing. I'm looking forward to reading Towards Non-Being, which I have on order. In a nutshell Priest makes explicit what was implicit in Cantor and Gödel that the Absolute is necessarily contradictory, but he puts a new twist on this by using developments in paraconsistent logic to allow us to reason correctly about inconsistent truths. This has lots of implications in relation to Gödel. For example, Gödel's incompleteness theorems do not preclude a paraconsistent axiomatic theory of arithmetic from being formally complete, and in fact such systems have been build by paraconsistent set theorists. For myself lately I've been playing with the idea that true contradictions are what we get when an Absolute infinity is cast into finite forms of expression. Basically, an infinite logic must be compressed into a finite logic, which results is a kind of super-imposing of truth values. Similar to how a three dimensional figure with no intersecting lines, might be shadow projected onto a 2D plane with the result of intersections that do not represent true vertices of the figure. Thus a realist view about Absolute infinity allow us to avoid embracing a foundational dialethism, which is the view that reality itself has true contradictions. Instead, we could that reality itself is Absolutely infinite and it is only our compressed expressions of this reality which much necessarily display true contradiction. Of course, to say that we can express Absolute infinity in our finite language implies or presupposes that we have a mode of direct (non-linguistic) knowledge of Absolute infinities. This agrees with what Gödel says to Rucker. If we have such an intuition, it very similar to the mode of knowledge of God described by the mystics and explains why mystical experience is strictly speaking ineffable. Nevertheless, paraconsistent logic allows us to correctly express in finite language as much as could possibly be expressed about the Absolute.

[@Siniverisyys]

I always feel like Godel is bringing himself down to the level of children when explaining himself. I'm thankful he's also an apparently patient dude

[@shoopinc]

Yup same with John Von Neumann

[@anubhav21dec]

Thank God you're back!

[@berkshiretube]

Hi Gary,... Finally something new, ha... I had waited for long time. Great video 😊

[@GaryGeckDotCom]

:)

[@WilliamKus]

I find it hilarious that they use Neil Tyson as the front man for science-as-the-absolute (aka science-is-god), because he is indeed a most infuriating bishop of science-as-religion.

[@dragonsmith9012]

I like him, but he's a school marm. There's so many science minded KZbinrs who model themselves after him, afraid of woo woo, when in reality, most of the greatest scientific breakthroughs happen because of people who dabble in woo. The school marms always sanitize the real biographies of these geniuses. For instance, most of the founding fathers of quantum physics went down the woo rabbit hole of consciousness, but later recanted only because Oppenheimer would pull strings to deny them tenure or funding or what have you. Meanwhile Oppenheimer himself was diagnosed as being psychotic.

[@GentlemensAcademy]

I’ve always thought that he was an actor. Here to steer our views on religion and the true shape of our PLANEt earth. I don’t believe anything he says. Especially since he said the earth is “pear-shaped”, an oblate spheroid.

[@TheWilliamKus]

@@dragonsmith9012 Science has always been hampered by science!

[@TheWilliamKus]

@@GentlemensAcademy He doesn't have anything groundbreaking or even out of the ordinary in his scientific career. He is like the average school teacher, reading directly from the textbook, and getting paid a lot to do what anyone can do.

[@syourke3]

He’s only there because of his skin color.

[@rhetoric5173]

Where or the rest of the series

[@tadficuscactus]

I'm maxing my brain out trying to follow this.

[@actualizedplan4978]

Man. I love your videos! Thanks for uploading new videos!

[@GaryGeckDotCom]

good man...

[@memesofproduction27]

Gary is an illuminatus of the highest degree, and is waiting for the right time for humanity to reveal the hermetic truths he holds. The ripples caused by each of his videos have made their way through art, culture, politics. In his final works, set to be revealed in 2045 AD, he will disclose the method for viewers to directly merge with the godhead, creating a techno-priest-mathematician warrior class of individuals who will retake the academy by storm, rebuild the Library of Alexandria, unite the world and galvanize a new renaissance, and finally overcome the Uranium barrier preventing mankind from spreading among the stars. Whenever you're ready, bro.

[@SaveriusTianhui]

We're waiting on you Gary

[@GaryGeckDotCom]

part 25 coming out within a month and 26 to follow the month later...I think 2019 will be a big year

[@GaryGeckDotCom]

25 and 26 will collectively deal with AI and the distant future in the light of Leibniz and Godelian thought

[@memesofproduction27]

@@GaryGeckDotCom Human-centric AI with creative mathematical intuition being the only thing not simulatable by a "Turing machine", with Leibnizian universal symbolic language being the transferrence between these math monks? Rebirth of the Cult of Pythagoras as a tech company?

[@koffeeblack5717]

@@GaryGeckDotCom Hope everything's alright, Gary. Your website seems hacked lol. Leads to a male enhancement page?

[@GaryGeckDotCom]

much thanks to Billy and David for generous donations in pay pal.

[@vascoespañol]

you are in my hall of fame for these videos,

[@GHOSTFACE323]

great work gary. have been waiting on this video for two years now. thank you

[@davidbismark77]

fantastic to have you back

[@joseph-jg2ie]

Where can I find the full series

[@Joao-uj9km]

Had no idea Gary geck was back!! Hands down genius

[@superkill749]

Where did all the other videos go?

[@vincelaszloszalma5575]

It was a high quality research. I hope you finish the series. By the way it was almost impertinent to make a video about Gödel, start with Bach and not to use an Escher lithography at 22:59. You rebel, you... :)

[@ObeySilence]

Incredible!

[@danm8411]

Thanks for the new vid! 😄

[@jaredvv86]

Glad to see you're back. Don't be a stranger

[@eduardomartinez3499]

i'm so happy your back

[@parmenidesofelea9092]

Incredible stuff, thanks for the upload. Is there anywhere I can view the whole series? The website seems to be out of order.

[@jepe4537]

A classic video to revisit Gary. ✌️Sheds light greatly on the paradoxical nature of all thought. Cheers mate.

[@tonym6566]

23:00 ish Gnosis of the Absolute La barranca de Don Juan, etc 45:00 ish markov blankets for the infinite?

[@judithgarfias8014]

What's the name of the image shown on minute 24:33 ???

[@HammertownWins]

Ayy Gary! Gonna watch this!

[@kerry-ch2zi]

Yes Virginia, there is a reality... Gary Geck has found a formula for restoring sanity to ontology. Haters shall inherit only the Jabberwocky: Does the mind's eye see less than the others? Geck has restored the aesthetic to philosophy. Very pretty and informative stuff. Geck is "The Dude," and this is "The Big Lebowski."

[@AmyAmy-er8bp]

6-3 is 3. and 9-6 is 3. and 12-9 is 3. for my equation the end result is guaranteed to be always 3.

[@jade5202]

don't give up on this bruhhh

[@holyox3088]

you're back! cheers

[@Zelator1000]

New video! Yes!

[@matthewgrimm9036]

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

[@qwerdbeta]

Is it good for kids? Because my daughter would learn stuff

[@SaveriusTianhui]

8:30 Wittgenstein's work was an inspiration for positivism but he himself (esp Late Wittgenstein) was NOT a positivist. There were instances where upon being invited to a Vienne circle meeting-- Ludwig ignored the audience, faced the wall and recited Tagore (see Ray Monk's bio). I believe the Key Godel needed was a non-dualistic notion from Tantra or the Tao. I am surprised he did not pick this up from Wang.

[@Bestofchatgpt]

great videos

[@Gverri]

We need more content.

[@GaryGeckDotCom]

2 videos coming out back to back really soon...sorry for wait

[@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017]

Did you do the graphic with the scratches zooming out to the dunes? That was awesome.

[@GaryGeckDotCom]

yea haha I put work into that lol

[@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017]

GaryGeckDotCom That was absolutely gorgeous! Really nice work!

[@k1mpman]

are videos like this one available as podcast? I'd love to listen to it while out walking etc. Very nice video, thanks!

[@GaryGeckDotCom]

search garygeck on your podcast app of choice...although I need to update that feed with the latest...give me a few days my friend

[@naimulhaq9626]

Opposites do not lead to circular paradox. Opposites lead to 'a priory', timeless formula for reality as conceived by 'universal consciousness', that enabled the timeless creation of the benevolence coexisting with the malevolence, producing the evolution of the universe, life and conscious beings. If opposites led to circular paradox, limiting our attempt to know all, then with the limited definition of the physical quantities of space, time,mass, force etc., could not enable us to take the leap from the abstract to the concrete footing of the Standard Model, enabling us to discover 'self-organizing property of matter' and 'self-reference', etc., due to the fine tuning of the parameter space, resulting in creation of conscious beings, equipped to discover intelligent design and divine purpose.

[@ObeySilence]

Omg I got to watch this on shrooms. damn

[@hookedonafeeling100]

The truth is deadly, some would say... Some ppl need the truth or they go bananas! So glad u r back! ;)

[@Davemac1116]

Hi Gary. I love your videos, though I can't, I'm afraid, pretend to understand the entire concepts. But I was wondering does the concept 'material' actually exist since Newton apparently demolished this notion with his theory of gravity, which showed that the World is not a machine; and the abandonment of the mechanical philosophy as an 'intelligible' explanation of the Universe ?

[@Davemac1116]

K. Yogi Thanks for your replies. My reason for asking on the concept (or non-conceptual definition of 'material', 'physical' etc) is owing to a lecture I saw in which Chomsky discusses the first cognitive revolution. He says that there was a concept of material - the mechanical philosophy: contact action; a lever or whatever striking against another mechanism; causal determinacy. But that we now have no concept of 'material' since gravity action-at-distance of non-causal contact of this kind essentially showed this definition of mechanical science no longer is adequate. And that no other definition has since been given. He says that 'material' now includes things like 'thought', or anything we may care to conceive. I'm not sure if I've explained this in adequate terms. But I find the topic interesting nonetheless.

[@nelsonpereira9306]

Is this a digital world AV version of GBE? Thanks for the extensive research!

[@PhiladelphiaPhilms]

Great Video, Gary Geck! Love Godel. I'm still trying to understand all of the math, philosophical, and physical implication of his work. He was one of the main sources of inspiration for "Digital Physics", an independent film I made. Check it out on iTunes, Amazon, or Vimeo. I am also releasing it for free on Amazon Prime in March in hopes of reaching a larger audience. Thanks again! Thought-provoking stuff here!

[@GaryGeckDotCom]

thanks for interest. We all are struggling to understand world of Godel, Leibniz, Plato...that is why vids are out of order, it's our collective learning of these things and it's not linear...we get a piece here and there and the picture slowly comes together.

[@jonkeuviuhc1641]

I'm a bit confused, are there 42 videos in this series? I managed to find only 1, 2, 3, 19, 22, 24 and 28. Where are the rest?

[@memesofproduction27]

The eternal question. Let me know if you find them, I've been trying to get them out of Gary for years.

[@sFeral]

Me3

[@mcjgenius]

Very nice work on your video, ty

[@mrbwatson8081]

Thank you for this :)

[@thelaughingphilosopher2421]

Switched off at 1:43. I was looking for a documentary on Godel, not self-absorbed navel-gazing.

[@2msvalkyrie529]

Agree ! Where is Bertrand Russell when we need him..?

[@luismcfonseca]

Very well done. congrats

[@v3le]

who are the positivist?

[@StephenJeffress]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! gary!!!!!!!!

[@shoopinc]

Abstraction in mathematics doesn't add any information, it is purely rearranging the information we already have into a form where we may be more likely to see a result.

[@hobonickel840]

I just stumbled on to your channel after learning about poetical science and selectful terms as code for classes and levels of intellect... seems some terms seem to be abandoned by outliers or the higher minded collective ...I also became obsessed with hexagrams before ever knowing about Leibniz... I also have pretty good case that evil is only "fictional stories" as Harari would say

[@jamesdragonforce]

I know this is a bit off-topic, but since you appear to have described Darwin’s work as a continuation of Voltaire, are you in denial of evolution by natural selection?

[@WilliamKus]

Have you noticed that evolution on a grand scale becomes less complex as more and more species die and not more complex and variable from "mutations"?

[@markwrede8878]

Genius may be nothing more than what is socially salvageable from individual fanatical delusion.

[@lecinquiemeroimage]

Subtitles please. Thanks a lot.

[@baldrbraa]

Gödel, not «girdle». Do you see an «r» in there?

[@Goedels]

No tengo NVIDIA, me la perdí 😢

[@dragonsmith9012]

Gary Geck don't play around. 😯🐎

[@traezaX1]

We are the 15 percent nice video though

[@AmyAmy-er8bp]

endrouse ???

[@AmyAmy-er8bp]

when you add two to two you get four. when you do two times two you get four again. when you do 1*1 you get one. when you add 1 you get add1

[@CGMaat]

Quintessential

[@AmyAmy-er8bp]

then what's the difference. 20 is not 60 because 20/10 is 2 and 60/10 is 6. and if I add 2+6 I get 8. times 10. 80. which is less than 100. and I I know how to count, I count from 80 to 100....

[@armandoalvarez7400]

Random question after watching this... if 1 man and 1 women (1+1) have triplets then would that be 1+1=3??? or would it be 1+1=5(including both creators and the triplets in the 5) But also when they say when a man and a women come together they become 1 how would that work?? hmmm... So is the only true number that exist is 1??? so many questions lol

[@playthe777]

Everybody is “I”

[@billearp245]

How about opinions and fact?

[@WilliamKus]

Great question. On par with Aristotle... Onassis.

[@abhiramababa]

So much talking. Yes there is a God. We know this. What is God? How to know God? At 31:40 there's a picture of a description of the Samkya philosophy of the Vedas. This is only a partial understanding of the Vedas. Upon understanding Vedanta, understanding that "Aham Brahmasmi" then a person can gradually come to the position of being situated in their eternal loving relationship with God. This is all fully described in books such as the Bhagavad Gita and the Srimad Bhagavatam. The Bhagavad Gita describes the five eternal truths and their relationship (God, the soul, Nature, actions, and time). The Srimad Bhagavatam explains the way infinite parallel material universes are created by expansions of the original Godhead, and much more. If you're really interested, if you're really actually serious about asking this question and genuinely seeking serious answers, then go straight to the source and take it AS IT IS. If you're serious, you will apply it in your life.

[@33sosa85]

Lol shut up man you dont know any more than the next guy. You just know what you know and cannot concretely transfer your knowledge with tangiable change in understanding. So you talk too much

[@waterkingdavid]

Fantastic your back Gary! Thank you so much for all your painstaking efforts. I have watched once but will watch many times again. Interestingly in Buddhism the conceptualising mind is considered one of the sense bases (along with ear, nose etc) whose objects, called mental objects, are considered objects of that sense. Personally I am still not satisfied as mind certainly does not seem equal to the other senses given that the conceptualising faculty seems of a very different order to the other sense bases. In a silly way I have played with spelling the word thinking as "thingking" given the way thinking rises up above all other things. But what is so compelling about Godel is his view that mental objects/concepts are equally "real" as the objects we encounter "out there" in the world. Consider this experiment:- Take a piece of paper and write the word "REAL" on it and look at it for a moment asking yourself what you are seeing. At one level its a about the color and shape of paper and ink. At another its about squiggles of ink. At another is about a symbol that has a meaning which is very abstract. Now take the paper and burn it so its not longer there. Close you eyes and repeat what you have just done in your imagination. Then consider which is more real - what you have imagined or the earlier process. Which is more real, the former or the latter? I suggest both are equally real. But that in order to be free of the oppression of the former the more powerfully we can imagine the latter making it more and more vivid, the more free we are and that this process, (which we may well have been born with and which we have been systematically taught to discard [since imagination is considered somehow less real or less important than the supposed real and concrete world out there]) is our path to knowing rather than believing in Truth. So this obsession with clinging onto the supposed real and concrete world "out there" for dear life in fact ultimately actually makes us dead to it. While rather going "inward" and abstracting ultimately makes us alive to both "worlds" in and out, discovering perhaps just one world which is both part of us and us a part of it. Or have I misunderstood Godel completely???

[@GaryGeckDotCom]

I can't speak for Godel, but I sure like it...

[@thirtyseven7218]

I identify as a stallion, please don't assume my gender.

[@AmyAmy-er8bp]

5*2 = 10. 5+5 = 10. (121) (4) 141 6 and we see 1 41 132 133-1 = 132. 43 63 93 and 3 6 9 nd etc and my fav numbers. thirty three... times

[@None-ss1zi]

I don't know how you've been able to AI generate this video before AI become a thing

[@AmyAmy-er8bp]

thousand island.

[@yoichihiruma4291]

Yes, you are inside a church

[@AmyAmy-er8bp]

20*5 vs 25*4 100 100.

[@domelessanne6357]

I once talked to god on KZbin?

[@jetsetter8541]

Dwelling on the complexity of the cosmos is futile efforts. The best is to see the simplicity in complexity and meditate , drop all thinking.

[@philosophe5319]

Junior Jetseter that’s your opinion. Many people derive a great deal of joy from dwelling like that.

[@jetsetter8541]

@@philosophe5319 Thanks for the criticism, which puts my feet on the ground and I let myself into abstract thinking being aware that someone is on guard watching my theory & if I am not going out of sanity. I don't want to end up with mental illness like Kurt Gödel did. If he had people like yourself to ground him down he wouldn't have to go to mental assilum.

[@shoopinc]

@@jetsetter8541 Godel was best friends with Einstein. Godel's mind was too great, not even Einstein could ground him.

[@PlasmaSnake369]

@@shoopinc Einstein was a crackpot

[@rkara2]

Godel is a genius, not because he defines the nature of abstraction, but because he refers to the source condition or state, that is "doing" the abstracting, as a non-abstract event. Non-abstraction or energy (serving or surrendering of the four faculties), always precedes presumed abstraction (withholding of the four faculties), according to Godel. Or another way of saying this, is that for every human request or circumstance, there has to be a preceding service that serves that circumstance. Service + Request = System It's never: Request + Service = System That would be like saying, that the body-mind or materialism comes before the breathe or energy or non-materialism. It doesn't. Non-abstraction, non-materialism or service always comes before abstraction, materialism or a request, according to Godel. Four faculties: Body or service Mind or attention Emotion or feeling Breathe or energy !DA

[@AmyAmy-er8bp]

grildrill

[@AmyAmy-er8bp]

thous and...

[@PeteJones81]

Made it 1:00 in, well done. Started terrible and got worse.

[@AmyAmy-er8bp]

2+2+2= 6/3 =2 1,2,3, then result over 3. and two asuma I will give u

[@acesfx8112]

no idea what he is on about...

[@AmyAmy-er8bp]

ed yete mez es sentsxaytarak drutyan mej gtsum... axqat

[@AmyAmy-er8bp]

endroub dumb pretty much

[@nicholastrice8750]

Dig the subject matter, but not the music or the speaking style. It detracts from the serious and fascinating aspects of Gödel's personality and work.

[@andyiswonderful]

I couldn't watch more than a few minutes of this due to the poor production quality and sound.

[@WilliamKus]

Avengers movies are more up your alley. Or maybe Cosmos. :D