Kurt Gödel’s belief in the afterlife

Kurt Gödel (1906-1978) was a powerful logician whose contributions to logic, mathematics, and philosophy were immense. He was deeply interested in those aspects of philosophy that touched on religion and one of those was his ontological proof for God’s existence.

The argument is in a line of development that goes back to Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109). St. Anselm’s ontological argument, in its most succinct form, is as follows: “God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.” A more elaborate version was given by Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716); this is the version that Gödel studied and attempted to clarify with his ontological argument.
…

Gödel is not known to have told anyone about his work on the proof until 1970, when he thought he was dying. In February, he allowed Dana Scott to copy out a version of the proof, which circulated privately. In August 1970, Gödel told Oskar Morgenstern that he was “satisfied” with the proof, but Morgenstern recorded in his diary entry for 29 August 1970, that Gödel would not publish because he was afraid that others might think “that he actually believes in God, whereas he is only engaged in a logical investigation (that is, in showing that such a proof with classical assumptions (completeness, etc.) correspondingly axiomatized, is possible).”[2] Gödel died January 14, 1978. Another version, slightly different from Scott’s, was found in his papers. It was finally published, together with Scott’s version, in 1987.

(For more see Oppy, Graham. 2017. “Ontological Arguments.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Summer 2017 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta.)
[Read more…]

Palisades fire and Monday morning quarterbacking

The fires that are raging in southern California are taking a terrible toll on lives and property. They have been intensified by the strong Santa Ana winds that reached high speeds passing through the funnel that makes up the valley and feeding on the dry vegetation.

Of course, whenever a disaster like this strikes, there is immediate finger-pointing at :(1) who or what might have been the cause of the fire; (2) who might be responsible for not responding correctly and quickly enough; and (3) who might be responsible for not anticipating the scale of the disaster and making sure that the response would be adequate. Some of this finger pointing is by people acting to deflect attention from themselves. But others indulging in this activity are those who have no connection to the events nor have any particular expertise in this area but still think they know what should have been done to deal with it and are not shy about sharing their conclusions.

Kevin Drum writes that this kind of after-the-fact pontificating is useless when you are dealing with events that lie outside the normal range that can be, and have been, anticipated, and this fire is one such event. He takes aim at one particular accusation, that authorities had not taken into account the amount of water needed is such a fire occurred in this location, and that using sea water or desalinated water would have helped.
[Read more…]

Would-be ‘Pizzagate’ avenger shot dead by police

One of the more bizarre episodes of the lunatic QAnon conspiracies was the widely circulated ‘Pizzagate’ story of how the basement of a Washington DC pizzeria known as Comet Ping Pong was the location where prominent Democratic politicians indulged in sex with minors, and where their orders for pizza were in code where the toppings represented the kind of victim they sought.

One man Edgar Maddison Welch believed the story and felt that it was his duty to stop this crime and so in 2016 he heavily armed himself with an AR-15 and other guns and drove about 350 miles from his home in Salisbury, North Carolina to stop it. Along the way, he made a recording to his family explaining what he planned to do and telling them that he would likely end up dead. Fortunately, things did not end badly, at least on that day. Arriving at the pizzeria, he searched the place after the terrified customers had fled and found that there was no basement and no nefarious activities going on and decided that he had been misled about the whole thing and surrendered himself. (You can read the more lurid details in my post from back in 2016.)

But last weekend, Welch was killed by police at a traffic stop in North Carolina.
[Read more…]

New DC ‘think tank’ staffed entirely by AI robots

Over at Drop Site, Waqas Ahmed, Murtaza Hussain, and Ryan Grim have unearthed a new DC ‘think tank’ called Beltway Grid. What was interesting was that they could not find any background to any of the people listed in its ‘About Us’ page. It seems to be populated entirely by non-persons.

In October, a new foreign policy think tank calling itself the Beltway Grid Policy Centre quietly entered D.C.’s diplomatic fray. While there was no launch party and no K Street office we could find, the think tank nevertheless began producing its intellectual product at a startling pace, issuing reports, press releases, and pitching journalists on news coverage—much of it focused on South Asia, and, in particular, the ongoing political crisis in Pakistan.
[Read more…]

Peter Yarrow (1938-2025)

The folk trio Peter, Paul, and Mary formed a major part of the soundtrack of my adolescence. Mary Travers died in 2009 at the age of 72 and today came news of the death of Peter Yarrow at the age of 86. They had wonderful harmony and were also politically progressive, lending their. names to all manner of actions in support of civil rights and opposing US wars. They had a string of hits.

Below is one of their less-well-known songs I Dig Rock and Roll Music that poked gentle fun at that other genre and contained impressions of The Mamas and the Papas, Donovan and The Beatles. Travers and Paul Stookey did the vocals on this one with Yarrow providing most of the guitar work.

The end of four legacy empires

Alfred McCoy is a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin in Madison and the author of many books and articles on the nature of global power. He has written an article chronicling four legacy empires (France, Russia, China, and the US) and their declines.

He starts with France. The details of its colonial heyday were relatively unknown to me.

Let’s start with the French neocolonial imperium in northern Africa, which can teach us much about the way our world order works and why it’s fading so fast. As a comparatively small state essentially devoid of natural resources, France won its global power through the sort of sheer ruthlessness — cutthroat covert operations, gritty military interventions, and cunning financial manipulations — that the three larger empires are better able to mask with the aura of their awesome power.

For 60 years after its formal decolonization of northern Africa in 1960, France used every possible diplomatic device, overt and covert, fair and foul, to incorporate 14 African nations into a neo-colonial imperium covering a quarter of Africa that critics called Françafrique.
[Read more…]

Trump Day One agenda

Trump has made a lot of statements about what he will do on day one of his administration, so many that there will not be enough hours in the day to do most of them even if he were serious about the promises. But I know what his most important priority will be and that is to try and show that the crowds at this inauguration exceed in size what Barack Obama had in 2008. That his inauguration crowd in 2016 was much smaller than Obama’s was something that really rankled him to the extent that he made his then press secretary Sean Spicer look foolish by trying to argue otherwise when the aerial evidence clearly showed the opposite. Trump continued to lie about this long after everyone other than his cult followers knew that it was false. So brace yourself for this to be his top priority.

But what about the more consequential things that he has promised to do one day one?
[Read more…]

The phony debate over cutting the budget deficit

One of the longest running pointless discussions in US politics is about what to do about the federal budget deficit. This is simply the annual excess of all government spending over all government revenues. The cumulative total of all such deficits is the government debt. For the fiscal year 2024, the government had revenues of $4.92 trillion and spent $6.75. trillion, leaving a deficit of $1.83 trillion. The national debt up through November 2024 was $36.09 trillion.(See here for more.)

Different people have different views about how big of a problem the deficit is. One school of thought uses the metaphor of the government budget being like a family’s budget, and that a deficit means borrowing money that has to be paid back with interest later. They argue that running up deficits year after year means that the debt burden will become intolerable and that we are leaving future generations (our children in this metaphor) in a fiscal hole that they will have a hard time digging themselves out of. They view this as a horrible prospect.
[Read more…]

Blog comments policy

At the beginning of every month, I will repost my comments policy for those who started visiting this site the previous month.

As long time readers know, I used to moderate the comments with a very light hand, assuming that mature adults would know how to behave in a public space. It took outright hate speech targeting marginalized groups to cause me to ban people, and that happened very rarely. But I got increasingly irritated by the tedious and hostile exchanges among a few commenters that tended to fill up the comment thread with repeated posts about petty or off-topic issues. An email sent to me privately by a long-time lurker brought home to me how people might be hesitant to join in the conversation here, even if they have something to say, out of fear that something that they write, however well-intentioned, will be seized upon and responded to in a hostile manner by some of the most egregious offenders.

So here is a rule: No one will be able to make more than three comments in response to any blog post. Violation of that rule will result in banning.

But I also want to address a couple of deeper concerns for which a solution cannot be quantified but will require me to exercise my judgment.

It is well known that the comments sections on the internet can be a cesspool. I had hoped that the people who come to this site would be different, leading to more mature exchanges. But I was clearly too sanguine. We sometimes had absurdly repetitive exchanges seemingly based on the childish belief that having the last word means that you have won the argument or with increasingly angry posts sprinkled with puerile justifications like “They started it!”

The other issue is the hostility that is often expressed, often triggered by the most trivial of things. People should remember that this is a blog, not a journal or magazine. There are no copy editors, proof readers, and fact checkers. In such a casual atmosphere, people (and that includes me) will often inadvertently be less than precise or accurate in what they say. If the error is trivial but the meaning is clear, the error should be ignored. If the meaning is not clear, clarification can be politely asked for. If it is a genuine error, a correction can be politely made. If I think people are being rude or condescending or insulting (and I do not mean just abusive language but also the tone), I will ban the person.

For me, and I suspect for the other bloggers on this network, the rewards of blogging lie in creating space for a community of people to exchange ideas and views on a variety of topics. But that is pleasurable only if people post comments that are polite and respectful towards others, even while disagreeing. Some time ago, I wrote a post that a good philosophy of life is “Don’t be a jerk”. That would be a good rule to keep in mind when posting comments as well. There is absolutely no call for anyone to be rude or sneering or condescending towards others.

Almost all the commenters on this blog contribute positively and it is a pleasure to read their contributions and interact with them. It is a very few who think that a sneering, condescending, or abrasively argumentative tone is appropriate. My patience has been worn thin by some of their comments in the past. If I think, for any reason whatsoever, that someone is behaving like a jerk, I will ban them. I am in no mood to argue about this. I will not make any public announcement about who is banned. They will simply find that they can no longer post comments.

So I would suggest that in future commenters think carefully before they post anything, taking into account what they say and how often they say something. They should try to put themselves in the shoes of the person they are arguing with and think about how they might feel if their comment had been directed at them. They should also think about how their comments might look to others. It surprises me that people do not realize how badly this kind of behavior reflects on themselves.

Readers may have noticed that there are no ads on any of the blogs on this network. Nobody is making any money at all. In fact, it is a money sink and PZ Myers pays for the costs of the servers out of his Patreon account that you can contribute to if you would like to support the network. The bloggers here blog because they want to create spaces for conversations on issues that they care about. ‘Clicks’ have no monetary value. That means that I do not care how many people come to the site.

I realize that these guidelines are somewhat vague. So a good rule of thumb would be: If in doubt as to whether to post something because it might violate these boundaries, that is a good sign to not post it. I will be the sole judge of whether the boundary has been crossed.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I have zero tolerance for people who try to find ways to skirt the guidelines such as, for example, skirting the three comment limit by continuing it on another thread. I also reserve the right to make exceptions to the rules at any time, if I feel it is warranted. These decisions will be solely mine and will be final. There will be no discussion, debate, or appeal. If anyone objects because they think that I am being arbitrary, they are of course free to leave and never return.