# "Souls" do not exist. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2003, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849 "2003-03-28T19:10:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2003, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/141 "2003-03-31T20:43:30Z")
> [@](#): > > The input that the system will be subjected to cannot be predefined; you cannot know the entirety of the universe if you’re in it! Not to belabor the point, but the kind of soul we’re talking about is **not** in it. > [@](#): > > I can only conclude that you misunderstood. G’sIT guarantees that your system has a vulnerability. You might be able to safeguard a system from input of a certain type, but not all possible inputs. The system must either fail or crash for some input; if it didn’t, it would be sufficiently complex AND Turing complete, which violates the G’sIT. You misunderstand G’sIT; it **only** applies to things which are self-descriptive, and it does not imply “vulnerability”. My systems (like most systems) are not self-descriptive; they act on input and produce output, based on and constantly updating their current state. Just like the soul supposedly does. The theorem doesn’t apply. Almost nothing is “sufficiently complex”; and G’sIT states ONLY that not all problems _in a sufficiently complex system_ can be resolved to a truth value. Not that they don’t exist, or that all sufficiently complex systems will burst into flame the instant you write Godel’s symbols on paper. And it’s for systems only. It really has nothing to do with life, reality, _or_ computer programming. You are misunderstanding and misapplying the theorem on a gross scale. Oh, and “giving a system input” isn’t the same as “getting to it”, not if you’re talking about unresolvable input. There’s a big difference between TCP/IPing into a computer, and bashing it to smithereens with a hammer. The hammer, now, that’s unexpected input. The interface is just data; exactly what the system was designed to deal with. And you can’t ship a hammer down the T1 cable. No, for your purposes, you can’t “get at” souls. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2003, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/142 "2003-03-31T22:17:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > **Not to belabor the point, but the kind of soul we’re talking about is not in it.** Then it doesn’t exist. > [@](#): > > **You misunderstand G’sIT; it only applies to things which are self-descriptive, and it does not imply “vulnerability”. My systems (like most systems) are not self-descriptive; they act on input and produce output, based on and constantly updating their current state. Just like the soul supposedly does. The theorem doesn’t apply.** What?! Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies to all systems of sufficient power to represent the natural numbers. \*\* > [@](#): > > Almost nothing is “sufficiently complex”;\*\* Almost _everything_ is sufficiently complex. \*\* > [@](#): > > and G’sIT states ONLY that not all problems _in a sufficiently complex system_ can be resolved to a truth value. Not that they don’t exist, or that all sufficiently complex systems will burst into flame the instant you write Godel’s symbols on paper. And it’s for systems only. It really has nothing to do with life, reality, _or_ computer programming. You are misunderstanding and misapplying the theorem on a gross scale. \*\* Um, no. The Theorem means that systems will always have “unsolvable problems”, which means that certain configurations of information will result in the system’s failure or crashing. Turing’s Halting Problem is directly related to G’sIT: G’sIT is the reason the Halting Problem can’t be solved in the first place. > [@](#): > > \*\*Oh, and “giving a system input” isn’t the same as “getting to it”, not if you’re talking about unresolvable input. There’s a big difference between TCP/IPing into a computer, and bashing it to smithereens with a hammer. The hammer, now, that’s unexpected input. The interface is just data; exactly what the system was designed to deal with. And you can’t ship a hammer down the T1 cable. No, for your purposes, you can’t “get at” souls. \*\* The point is that there are always types of input that the system cannot be designed for. Cosmic rays, hammers, electrical surges: the system always has a vulnerability. I’ve checked with my associates. Their conclusion is that you’re on crack; I find I must concur. You’re free to continue talking, but I’m not going to bother paying attention. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2003, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/143 "2003-03-31T23:16:06Z")
> [@](#): > > **Which means the body can change the soul.** Correction in the name of precision: which means the body can change the soul _in those ways necessary for the soul to perceive the body_. I’ve agreed with you on this from the beginning; it’s stepping outside this claim, as you are doing, which I question. > [@](#): > > \*\*Does it go away if you close your eyes? > > There’s a difference between the world you happen to be observing and the total set of things that you can observe.\*\* No, of course it doesn’t go away if I close my eyes. Note that I said “capable of observing.” I suggest that this means the same thing “can observe.” > [@](#): > > **Not four-dimensionally. Seen from a three-dimensional perspective, we would see a sphere shrinking to a point, then expanding again at a constant rate. The cone is static.** This is really a tangent, of course, but nevertheless… Let me try it this way, then. The lightcone is defined by… ds[sup]2[/sup]=0. Fortunately, we have this extra little condition: ds is a function of time. Draw the surface ds[sup]2[/sup]=0 at time t and at time t+dt. Note that the spatial slice at time t=0 (the beginning of the universe) is larger at the latter time. The observable universe is bigger. Period, end of story. The shape of the lightcone is the same; the length of the line segment ct = r (in the joys of flat space) is bigger. The observable universe is that part with r between 0 and ct, ignoring such trivial things as general relativity and the Hubble expansion. In another way of viewing it, think of your 3D visualization. Run it backwards. You see, as time runs backwards, a sphere expanding at a constant rate. Note that the later I start, the longer it has to expand, and the larger the sphere. The sphere at time t=0 is the observable universe. Good enough? > [@](#): > > **I _have_ picked one. Now you’ve made the same error I did in not paying sufficiently close attention to what my opponent was actually saying.** So it seems. As your next statement makes clear, for you, reality is defined by those things which _do_ interact. I would say that reality is defined as those things which _can_ interact, regardless of whether they do so or not. For all I know, there’s some pandimensional little green man out there somewhere; the fact that he’s a pandimensional being and can’t in principle interact with me doesn’t mean he’s not real, it just means that I have no way of finding out whether he’s real or not, and I can ignore his hypothetical existence. His existence doesn’t depend upon my ignorance, any more than mine does upon his. > [@](#): > > \*\* Let’s assume the opposite. There aren’t any rules. What events can take place? If we say that any particular thing has happened, we’re saying that other things didn’t happen, and that violates the premise that there aren’t any rules.\*\* In the interest of fairness, I should admit that we must have the rule “things can happen.” More than that… well, I’m flabbergasted that you think so. A rule enables us to predict an outcome; if the outcome cannot be predicted, it doesn’t follow any rule in particular. Reality sure as heck seems to have a predictable outcome, but that needn’t be the case. Physics describes reality, but it doesn’t define it. More to the point, the existence or nonexistence of rules says nothing whatsoever about what form those rules take. For us to assume that we can tell the universe what it should be doing is the height of hubris; the universe tells us what it’s doing, and we try to make sense of it. This does not mean that it is even in principle possible to make sense of it, just that we can try. > [@](#): > > **The substance in which the logical system is embodied can be destroyed.** So? The system itself isn’t the paper on which it is written. When all records of mathematics cease to exist, mathematics won’t suddenly cease, and the universe won’t suddenly stop appearing to obey mathematical principles. 1+1=2 won’t cease to be true, it will merely cease to be relevant, comprehensible, or known. But the next time intelligent life stares up at the stars and ponders that big question of “why,” that life, it too, will eventually find that 1+1=2. > [@](#): > > **And the Earth could very well be used as a computer: haven’t you ever read The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy?** You’ve a point there. Let’s just say that I like the book but do not pretend to believe that it has anything to do with reality. (And even though it doesn’t pertain to me, not just yet…) > [@](#): > > \*\*Their conclusion is that you’re on crack; I find I must concur. \*\* Does hurling childish insults when someone persistently disagrees with you just make you feel good, or do you not understand the concept of civil discusion? ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/144 "2003-04-01T00:55:38Z")
TVAA, I made the point before, and didn’t see a response: It could very well be that souls do not follow what we consider to be immutable laws. Souls could well be existant disproof of all scientific theories about the universe. Damned unlikely, of course. But until we can see a soul in a lab, we can’t say which laws of the physical universe it does and does not follow. If you already replied to this, apologies, and please provide a link. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/145 "2003-04-01T00:58:29Z")
**g8rguy** , it’s called Argumentum ad hominem; a tactic often used when you have nothing else left. The appeal to unnamed authority in it was a nice touch. Sorry, **TVAA** , but your associates’ suppliers must have got their files mixed up. I’m not on crack, I’m on dope. Straight Dope. Waits out the applause and cheers… That’s an example of an ad-hominem attack as well, though without the venom. Lucky for me I’m not trying to base my proof on it. Sorry, **TVAA** but you and/or your sources are having a little problem. See, I **have** designed interfaces that were not vulnerable to attack. So, as I’ve seen a counterexample, you are most seriously disproven. Here are a few for you to chew on: A BlackBox that takes digial input, interprets it as binary, interprets those as 8 bit numbers (range 0-127) and then sends back a string of equal length but with all the numbers divided by 3 no remainder. Any surplus bits on the end of the string are retained indefinitely to be prefixed to the next incoming stream of data. Data return is withheld until 8 bits are recieved fromthe input. If the cache is filled then the excess input is discarded without report. Sad to say, sonny, this little BB is impervious to your hacking. It just spits everything back out, with minimal memory retention. What you think that’s too simple? Okay, how about: THIS BlackBox scans recieves a continuous stream of input, which it interprets as 8-bit ascii-encoded text. By comparing to an internal dictionary, it discards things that do not appear to be words. From this, it constructs an internal model that describes the speech style within the input. After it has enough input, as decided by its internal algorithm, it begins to send back messages that are in the style that the input has been in. Buffer overruns: flushed. While its output buffer is full it stops generating text. Aha, you might say, but you can sabotage the effort by sending in random words! Sure, but that won’t stop the program. Again, nothing you can do will stop the program, shot of getting an axe out and pounding the box to death. And we’ve never said that souls can’t become misinformed, or downright STUPID, just that there is no reason whatsoever to think that any activity taken in the known physical realm can make them operate in undefined ways, if they are indeed metaphysical and well designed. And after your medication kicks in you can reexamine: > [@](#): > > begbert2: Not to belabor the point, but the kind of soul we’re talking about is not in [physical reality]. > > TVAA: Then it doesn’t exist. Then what the heck are **you** talking about??? Tell you what, how about you, like, state your point, and then maybe we can discuss it. Last I checked, we were discussing the traditional conception of a soul (with a nod to **g8rguy** , who has his own conception which is not yet being discussed), and such a traditional concept includes: _extraphysicality_ (ie: not operating within/under the rules of the known universe) and eternal existence. If that’s not what on your mind, perhaps you should let us in on the secret. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/146 "2003-04-01T08:10:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > The _results_ are checked against observation. But the knowledge _comes_ from deduction. And of course, not all realms of mathematics make observable predictions. Sure, they’re not useful for most people, but they _exist_ nonetheless, and we have _knowledge_ about them. That’s what I mean. Not sure I follow you. Can you give us an example? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/147 "2003-04-01T11:50:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*TVAA, I made the point before, and didn’t see a response: It could very well be that souls do not follow what we consider to be immutable laws. Souls could well be existant disproof of all scientific theories about the universe. Damned unlikely, of course. But until we can see a soul in a lab, we can’t say which laws of the physical universe it does and does not follow. > If you already replied to this, apologies, and please provide a link. \*\* [sigh] It doesn’t matter if souls violate all of the currently-understood physical laws. It doesn’t matter if souls disprove all of currently-understood physics. If souls interact with other things, regardless of the means of their interaction, they’re vulnerable to disruption. They can’t be both changeable and eternal. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/148 "2003-04-01T12:30:34Z")
It’s perfectly possible to construct a system that can accept any input within a limited set; that’s why testing computer programs with data can be useful. But there are always more possible interactions with the world than fit into that extremely limited set. If we know what input types we’re willing to allow, we can indeed make something that will always work for any “acceptable” inputs, but there will always be at least one unacceptable input that the system won’t be able to handle. Of course, if we redefine “input” to mean “acceptable inputs”, both **begbert2** and **g8rbuy** are quite right: systems can indeed be designed to accept limited data without problems. However, the word “input” is well-defined in mathematical theories of computation. Technically speaking, the moon’s gravitational pull is a form of input: it’s an interaction that results in the transfer of information. The fact that computers in general can accept this input without changing their output noticably is irrelevant. They’re still wrong in the more general sense: there will always be some interaction with the world that computers won’t be able to handle. **begbert2** and **g8rguy** : “Against stupidity, the gods themselves cannot contend.” [Godel’s Theorem and Information Theory](http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/georgia.html) [Brief Sci. American article on the subject](http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=0002F4F1-B4F3-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7) [This is intesting: it discusses proper and improper uses of G’sIT in arguments.](http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/godel.html) Please note that computation is within the bounds where G’sIT is meaningfully defined: information theory is a valid and well-accepted branch of mathematics. Also, pay close attention to this: [presentation on G’sIT](http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/lab/nlp/gazdar/teach/atc/1998/talksnode16.html) You can find it elsewhere, so don’t take this site’s word for it, but it’s clearly stated that G’sIT applies to any system complicated enough to represent “elementary arithmetic”. This invalidates **begbert2** ’s claims here: > [@](#): > > \*\*You misunderstand G’sIT; it only applies to things which are self-descriptive, and it does not imply “vulnerability”. My systems (like most systems) are not self-descriptive; they act on input and produce output, based on and constantly updating their current state. Just like the soul supposedly does. The theorem doesn’t apply. > > Almost nothing is “sufficiently complex”; and G’sIT states ONLY that not all problems in a sufficiently complex system can be resolved to a truth value. Not that they don’t exist, or that all sufficiently complex systems will burst into flame the instant you write Godel’s symbols on paper. And it’s for systems only. It really has nothing to do with life, reality, or computer programming. You are misunderstanding and misapplying the theorem on a gross scale.\*\* I believe even a rudimentary examination of the links provided is enough to show that **begbert2** is full of it. I recommend that anyone who’s interested should go read one of the hundreds of high-quality books and articles about Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, its relationship with Turing’s work, and its implications for computer science and modelling in general. In all honesty, I’m not capable of explaining and presenting the Theorem in the manner it should. (This does not in any way change the fact that I understand the Theorem and its implications far better than **begbert2** and **g8rguy** do.) ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/149 "2003-04-01T14:42:31Z")
Then perhaps you don’t understand the scenario we’re talking about. As I’ve said, one swing of the sledge is about all the “unexpected input” that a computer needs to disrupt its operation. In scenarios that allow complete access to the “physical” (or metaphysical) object, you betcha you can find a weak point. However, and I had thought this was obvious, we’re talking about a soul that it outside the reach of physical reality. This does not mean that it follows no laws; however, it means that it is external to reality as we know it. Think of it as all of reality being spread out diagram-like on a table, for the soul to examine and cherry-pick for information at will. The soul is obviously very picky; it takes most or all of its information from the physical state of the nervious system of a single individual. If that state does not conform to expected parameters, the soul ceases controlling that individual, who promptly drops dead. Because the soul is choosing what to examine, and because its (meta)physical existence is not within the reach of things running around in physical reality, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that anything **in physical reality** is going to be able to find vulnerabilities in the soul. Which sure soundls like what you’re talking about. This is a scenario that seems to adequately account for the purported behavior of souls, and which certainly doesn’t imlpy that they could be vulnerable to attack from the world as we know it. It even does this without denying your claim of omnipresent flaws guaranteed by G’sIT. Which, I might add, you still seem to be grossly misapplying. You might want to examine your notes again. From [one of your sources](http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/godel/bible.html): > [@](#): > > Since we use the terms “complete” and “consistent” not only in formal logic, but in general discourse, it’s tempting to think that Gödel’s theorem tells us something about completeness and consistency even when we’re talking about the Bible, Objectivism, and so on. However, it does not, for “complete” and “consistent” are not formally defined concepts in such contexts, and mathematical theorems (such as Gödel’s theorem) only apply where the formally defined concepts used in the theorem can be applied. Perhaps you hadn’t noticed, but we don’t apply the terms “complete” and “consistent” to physical (or metaphysical) reality either. Just systems that assert truth values. And again from the same source, (this seems to speak directly of **TVAA** ): > [@](#): > > None of the “applications” or “implications” of Gödel’s theorem referred to in such passages are applications or implications in any formal sense. They are suggested extrapolations or analogues of Gödel’s theorem, or just vague ideas inspired by Gödel’s theorem. And thanks for the warning about the force it would take to point this out to you, but I plan to contend anyway. There may be hope for you yet. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/150 "2003-04-01T15:54:09Z")
First to **blowero** : Sure. Have you ever seen an imaginary number? Ultimately, everything we observe, we describe with real numbers. That doesn’t mean that we don’t understand the concept of _i_, and that we don’t have knowledge of it. Just that we can never observe it. I won’t claim to be a mathematical genius, but how about set theory? Geometry; ever seen a perfect circle? Degrees of infinity? Now to **TVAA** : Do you read your own cites? In addition to what **begbert** has already quoted: > [@](#): > > Gödel’s theorem doesn’t apply to the Bible, to Objectivism, to the English language, to the constitution of the United States, to quantum mechanics, or indeed to anything other than formal systems. In other words, the universe is not a formal system, so the theorem does not apply. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*However, the word “input” is well-defined in mathematical theories of computation. Technically speaking, the moon’s gravitational pull is a form of input: it’s an interaction that results in the transfer of information. The fact that computers in general can accept this input without changing their output noticably is irrelevant. > > They’re still wrong in the more general sense: there will always be some interaction with the world that computers won’t be able to handle. \*\* Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the real world; _ **the real world is not a bloody computer** _. Have you not realized this yet? The universe does no computation; it _is_, no more. Subsections of the universe do no computation; they _are_, and no more. I get the feeling that you really _do_ believe that electrons wander around thinking “hmm… the Dirac equation tells me to take a 90 degree turn to the left. Better do it.” This is complete and utter idiocy; electrons do what electrons do; we _model_ them with physics, but we do not _define_ them. Nature is what it is; the fact that we model it with mathematics is completely and utterly irrelevant. > [@](#): > > **begbert2 and g8rguy: "Against stupidity, the gods themselves cannot contend."** **TVAA** : Do you really want to shut down this debate by being a jackass? I ask you one last time to consider being polite. Although I’m not sure you even understand the concept. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/151 "2003-04-01T17:24:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > **As I’ve said, one swing of the sledge is about all the “unexpected input” that a computer needs to disrupt its operation. In scenarios that allow complete access to the “physical” (or metaphysical) object, you betcha you can find a weak point.** You don’t understand: there’s no such thing as “incomplete access”. It’s not as if you can decide by fiat that the rules the soul operates on simply fail to apply in certain circumstances. > [@](#): > > **However, and I had thought this was obvious, we’re talking about a soul that it outside the reach of physical reality. This does not mean that it follows no laws; however, it means that it is external to reality as we know it.** Then it can’t be changed by reality, so it can’t represent our minds or act as any kind of a meaningful guide. We’ve been over this before, **begbert2**. > [@](#): > > **Because the soul is choosing what to examine, and because its (meta)physical existence is not within the reach of things running around in physical reality, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that anything in physical reality is going to be able to find vulnerabilities in the soul. Which sure soundls like what you’re talking about.** How can the soul choose what to examine? In order to sense the world sufficiently to make additional choices, the soul would have to be affectable, which opens up the vulnerabilities again. > [@](#): > > **Perhaps you hadn’t noticed, but we don’t apply the terms “complete” and “consistent” to physical (or metaphysical) reality either. Just systems that assert truth values.** The rules that describe informational systems (including these hypothetical souls) can indeed be considered “complete” or “consistent” – that’s why we apply them to computational systems in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/152 "2003-04-01T17:31:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > \*\*Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the real world; _ **the real world is not a bloody computer** _. Have you not realized this yet? The universe does no computation; it _is_, no more. Subsections of the universe do no computation; they _are_, and no more. \*\* [sigh] “Computers do no computation, they _are_, and no more.” :rolleyes: Computation is information manipulation; the universe is nothing more than information. > [@](#): > > **I get the feeling that you really _do_ believe that electrons wander around thinking “hmm… the Dirac equation tells me to take a 90 degree turn to the left. Better do it.” This is complete and utter idiocy; electrons do what electrons do; we _model_ them with physics, but we do not _define_ them. Nature is what it is; the fact that we model it with mathematics is completely and utterly irrelevant.** We don’t define them, but _they have a definition_. Human mathematics is ultimately merely a model of the basic principles inherent in the universe itself, but these principles remain regardless of our beliefs. Electrons consistently obey principles; we might say that they **are** those principles, and their inherent nature leads to certain requirements. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/153 "2003-04-01T17:40:50Z")
One more time: If souls exchange information with the human body – if they interact with the world – they are subject to the same restrictions any other information-processing systems are subject to. Primary among these limitations are those implied by G’sIT and Turing’s HP, the first of which has been shown to show that no such system can successfully run all programs (which is logically equivalent to determining the truth value of a statement) and the second of which offers a specific embodiment of the general principle. If souls can be affected, they cannot be eternal: any ability to change inevitably means that some interaction will cause sufficient change to push the system out of the configuration range where it was meaningfully considered to function: the soul can be “destroyed” in the same way that any other object or system can be destroyed. All logical systems, whether ‘material’ or ‘immaterial’, are subject to G’sIT if they’re sufficiently complex to represent the natural numbers. This applies to _everything_, one way or another, as anything can be considered part of such a system. Any attempt to describe the nature of the universe is necessarily either fundamentally wrong or inevitably incomplete. Have fun reiterating your positions, boys: I’m through. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/154 "2003-04-01T18:31:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > First to **blowero** : > Sure. Have you ever seen an imaginary number? Ultimately, everything we observe, we describe with real numbers. That doesn’t mean that we don’t understand the concept of _i_, and that we don’t have knowledge of it. Just that we can never observe it. But what I was asking for an example of was your statement that **“not all realms of mathematics make observable predictions”**. Imaginary numbers _can_ be used to make observable predictions, because they can cancel out in equations, leaving a concrete result. There would be no point in having imaginary numbers if they had no use. Don’t most people consider such intangibles to be mere mathematical constructs that facilitate solving equations, and not actually representative of physical reality? In fact, the word “imaginary” itself seems very telling. If we were talking about imaginary souls, then I wouldn’t have a problem with the concept. The problem is, the soul is advanced as something that physically exists. > [@](#): > > I won’t claim to be a mathematical genius, but how about set theory? Geometry; ever seen a perfect circle? Degrees of infinity? Again, aren’t these all ends to a means? Would the concept of infinity be of any value if we were unable to yield any tangible results from its use in an equation? If such equations had no predictive power? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/155 "2003-04-01T18:59:01Z")
**TVAA** you certainly are through; you also happen to be incorrect on a massive number of points. If you choose not to come back and reiterate your incorrect positions, that is also fine with me. Your most blatant misunderstanding was likely taught to you; that however does not prevent you from unlearning it. As has been stated repeatedly throughout this thread **and** your sources, Godel’s incompleteness system states that no system that is able to make statements about its statements can via the manipulations of its symbology confirm the truth of all true statements. The has nothing to do with destroying anything, other than the preconception that a system could prove everything one way or the other. Whoever told you that Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem was the harbinger of the last days was either an idiot with not a lick of the knowledge required to understand such a theorem (for no rational logician or mathematician would seriously say such a thing), was testing to see wether you could detect crap, or was someone who had, as you likely did, the same false and ridiculous notion taught to them. Beyond the totally absurd notion you’re basing your arguments on, there are a few other of your positions you might want to reconsider. > [@](#): > > You don’t understand: there’s no such thing as “incomplete access”. > > It’s not as if you can decide by fiat that the rules the soul operates on simply fail to apply in certain circumstances. By theorizing that the soul might not exist in the physicial plane, we are by definition assuming incomplete access. It’s not on the plane you’re on, remember? And, of course, there is the point that even in good old computerland, there is such a thing as “Access Denied”. I’m afraid that I understand your statement; it happens to be absurd and demonstrably false. Can you read my mind from there? If not, you have incomplete access. Your only avenue to my mind is this board. And whatever you do to hack the board, you’re not going to hack my mind through it. > [@](#): > > Then it can’t be changed by reality, so it can’t represent our minds or act as any kind of a meaningful guide. We’ve been over this before, begbert2. False. I gave an example scenario where the “higher” level being can be changed by a “lower” reality at its discretion. Here’s another: You’re playing a text-based computer game. Your perception of the “game world” can be changed by the text you see, and you control your avatar within the game. If the game decides to mess with your mind it can feed you lies, and gibberish, but sorry, sucker, there is no “magic char string of death” that the computer can print on its screen to cause your head to explode. Unless you take Monty Python’s “the funniest joke in the world” as gospel. > [@](#): > > How can the soul choose what to examine? In order to sense the world sufficiently to make additional choices, the soul would have to be affectable, which opens up the vulnerabilities again. False. You can examine a banana sufficiently to decide which bits are bruised and which bits are edible, and your head isn’t going to explode as a result. You are making the invalid assumption that merely because this reality seems massively complicated to you, it must seem so to souls. Perhaps they have the unified theory or something. Perhaps it’s just not the case that the “secret word of death” (which you are falsely assuming that Godel requires) is held within the universe as we know it. Perhps the soul keeps it safely locked in a box on the top shelf of its closet. [quote] The rules that describe informational systems (including these hypothetical souls) can indeed be considered “complete” or “consistent” – that’s why we apply them to computational systems in the first place. [quote] Tricky, here. Just because a descriptive system cannot discern the truth of all statements does not mean that the statements cannot exist. Your proof appears to be based on the idea that **all** statements creatable in a destcriptive system **all** are implemented/carried out by the thing to which the system is applied, AND that the universe, souls, or bananas give a rip about wether **your** calculation system can prove their truth or not. Neither of which is a true or even reasonable assumption. > [@](#): > > “Computers do no computation, they are, and no more.” > > Computation is information manipulation; the universe is nothing more than information. > … > We don’t define them, but they have a definition. Human mathematics is ultimately merely a model of the basic principles inherent in the universe itself, but these principles remain regardless of our beliefs. Electrons consistently obey principles; we might say that they are those principles, and their inherent nature leads to certain requirements. Even if we accept your peculiar assumption that the universe is an information system, there could only be a problem if the thing was so desperately committed to being described in a “complete” and “consistent” that, in finding it cannot be described so, it would commit seppuku out of grief. So, there cannot be a Turing-Complete solver. Have you noticed that your computer still works? > [@](#): > > If souls exchange information with the human body – if they interact with the world – they are subject to the same restrictions any other information-processing systems are subject to. Primary among these limitations are those implied by G’sIT and Turing’s HP, the first of which has been shown to show that no such system can successfully run all programs (which is logically equivalent to determining the truth value of a statement) and the second of which offers a specific embodiment of the general principle. And what cheesebar told you that the universe felt compelled to run all programs? Note that the proof is that not all programs can _complete_. That means, finish. Yes, your arguments argue that YES, things exist that if started, would NEVER STOP. Would you like to back off now, or should we point out that the soul might simply be one of those programs? [quote] If souls can be affected, they cannot be eternal: any ability to change inevitably means that some interaction will cause sufficient change to push the system out of the configuration range where it was meaningfully considered to function: the soul can be “destroyed” in the same way that any other object or system can be destroyed. [quote] False. Read your own sources, and note that you are misinterpreting them and they say so. Note that programs HAVE BEEN MADE that can withstand change; I gave two examples, one of which I could write in about ten minutes. And you can’t get to the soul with your sledgehammer, so forget the notion of having complete access. It was determined false in the scenario startup conditions. > [@](#): > > All logical systems, whether ‘material’ or ‘immaterial’, are subject to G’sIT if they’re sufficiently complex to represent the natural numbers. This applies to everything, one way or another, as anything can be considered part of such a system. The system, **not** the thing that it describes. Just because you can describe the weight of a banana with a natural number, does not mean that the banana suddenly somehow lacks in truth value, or that it explodes. > [@](#): > > Any attempt to describe the nature of the universe is necessarily either fundamentally wrong or inevitably incomplete. No. Any attempt to **completely** describe the universe will have unprovable assertions. However, that doesn’t mean that the universe is fundamentally wrong. Just that the systems are incomplete. Not the solar systems, the descriptive systems. > [@](#): > > Have fun reiterating your positions, boys; Fighting ignorance since 1973 (it’s taking longer than we thought) ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/156 "2003-04-01T19:30:50Z")
Don’t get me wrong, **blowero** , I’m not claiming that imaginary numbers have no use. I _am_ claiming that you can’t find a real life imaginary quantity of anything. You can’t observe an imaginary number, and you can’t place your hands on one. However, we still _know_ about them, which is what I’m trying to get across. Whether something has any real life application or not (imaginary numbers _do_, but pretty much any real life application you choose can be done, if much more tediously, with real numbers), I contend, is irrelevant to whether we _know_ about them. The concept of something that we can’t use for anything may be _useless_, but it isn’t _meaningless_, and it _is_ knowledge. Actually, I would also add that imaginary numbers did have a use even when we didn’t need them for real-world calculation: we need them to make certain operations logically consistent. That is, if you accept that you can take the n[sup]th[/sup] root of something, then you need to define an imaginary number so that the n[sup]th[/sup] root makes sense, even if the imaginary number has in and of itself no bearing on reality, right? As for **TVAA** : leave as you will. I find it interesting that when your own citations tell you that you’re wrong, you ignore them. This bespeaks a certain intellectual dishonesty, in my opinion, which does you little credit. This > [@](#): > > **Electrons consistently obey principles; we might say that they are those principles, and their inherent nature leads to certain requirements.** is sheer unmitigated balderdash. _You_ might say that electrons are their principles. You would happen to be making an assumption; it is probably the silliest assumption you’ve made yet. And in your proof by contradiction, it is the one I would accept as false. > [@](#): > > \*\*“Computers do no computation, they are, and no more.” :rolleyes: \*\* Now you’re being deliberately disingeneous; this is not surprising. A computer which is turned off does no computation; a computer which is in use does computation. This should be obvious to anyone with a shred of intellect. ---
**Author:** ![rickiwatts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9e5f3/32.png) [@rickiwatts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rickiwatts)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/157 "2003-04-01T19:48:26Z")
After thinking about it, I think the concept of an immortal souls is simply a mechanism in order to ease anxiety over death. Death isn’t quite so scary if you believe that a fundamental part of yourself will exist forevermore in some happy-place. Its also used as a vehicle to bring justice to the downtrodden. In other words, things may suck now, but if you follow the rules, you will be rewarded. A side benifit is that no-one as yet has come back to prove wether is true or not. The soul is an idea people came up with so they wouldn’t be so scared about dieing. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/158 "2003-04-01T20:06:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > Don’t get me wrong, **blowero** , I’m not claiming that imaginary numbers have no use. I didn’t say you were. In fact, it is precisely because they DO have a use, that I pointed out they are not an example of a “realm of mathematics” that does not make observable predictions. > [@](#): > > I _am_ claiming that you can’t find a real life imaginary quantity of anything. You can’t observe an imaginary number, and you can’t place your hands on one. However, we still _know_ about them, which is what I’m trying to get across. I’d say it’s more accurate to say we _invented_ them. And I already understood your point; I just don’t think it supports your supposition that mathematics exists as an entity independent of empirical observation. > [@](#): > > Whether something has any real life application or not (imaginary numbers _do_, but pretty much any real life application you choose can be done, if much more tediously, with real numbers), I contend, is irrelevant to whether we _know_ about them. The concept of something that we can’t use for anything may be _useless_, but it isn’t _meaningless_, and it _is_ knowledge. But why do you keep talking about things we “can’t use for anything”? You still haven’t given a valid example of such. > [@](#): > > Actually, I would also add that imaginary numbers did have a use even when we didn’t need them for real-world calculation: we need them to make certain operations logically consistent. That is, if you accept that you can take the n[sup]th[/sup] root of something, then you need to define an imaginary number so that the n[sup]th[/sup] root makes sense, even if the imaginary number has in and of itself no bearing on reality, right? Sorry to keep harping on you for examples, but what sort of mathematical operation would need to be done that would yield no useful result? They didn’t just make up _i_ for the hell of it. They said “how can I solve this equation?” Do you think it’s never been physically tested? You _can_ solve equations using imaginary numbers, and you _can_ test the results in real-world situations. If the results had come out as gibberish, the idea would have been discarded. Mathematics does not exist in a vacuum; it is only valuable to us because it allows us to make predictions of real-world events. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/159 "2003-04-01T21:35:22Z")
—You can see your eyes? In terms of direct experience you cannot, i.e. the unmirrored eye cannot see itself seeing.— What does that have to do with anything? The point is: I can use a system to examine the system. Whether I manufacture and use other tools to help is beside the point. Perhaps there are things the system cannot observe: but this not necessarily the case, as you seem to be asserting. We’re not talking about a logically descriptive system: it’s a thing, operating in a certain way, observing how it itself works. Godel doesn’t apply. —The soul/consciousness has been called the unobserved observer, as it can observe all except itself.— Oh: it’s been “called” that! What stunning evidence! —We as observer cannot observe that which is aware of thought.— This would apply that whatever thing you mean by “we as observer” is not aware of its own observations. If so, why call it an observer? —Besides if souls—consciousness are nothing then what could be observed or perceived?— I don’t understand the question. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849/160 "2003-04-01T23:11:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > **I’d say it’s more accurate to say we _invented_ them. And I already understood your point; I just don’t think it supports your supposition that mathematics exists as an entity independent of empirical observation.** Ah, well that’s a whole thread in and of itself, isn’t it? I seem to remember periodic outbreaks of the general “mathematics: invented or discovered” type threads. Obviously, you answer the former, while I answer the latter. But that’s not my key contention for this argument; my key contention is that logic told us that certain things about this mathematics which we either invented or discovered must be true; hence, we knew something. The fact that these things we invented or discovered later were shown to have real life applications is utterly irrelevant. > [@](#): > > **But why do you keep talking about things we “can’t use for anything”? You still haven’t given a valid example of such.** More accurate, I think, would be things we _needn’t_ use for anything. Certainly I’m not fixated on useless things; I just don’t pretend to believe that all things must have a real-world manifestation in order to be known. But I guess I don’t see a real life application of set theory. Or quaternion numbers. Or, for that matter, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. Or a perfect circle or sphere. Heck, many things in math were discovered (or invented, if you prefer) before any real life application was found. Here’s another one: 4-dimensional non-Euclidian geometry. The theoretical framework was worked out decades before Einstein. It just happened to be the case that it suited his purposes to describe the universe in these terms. If the universe _is_ correctly described in these terms, then we’d have to discover (or invent) this branch of mathematics in order to make progress. > [@](#): > > Sorry to keep harping on you for examples, but what sort of mathematical operation would need to be done that would yield no useful result? They didn’t just make up _i_ for the hell of it. They said “how can I solve this equation?” Yes; _consistency of the theory_ requires that you be able to solve the equation x[sup]2[/sup]+1=0, so they invented _i_ to allow us to do that. Why would they want to solve that equation, however? What real world thing does it describe? In fact, complex numbers were discovered (or invented) in the 1500’s, as far as I recall, admittedly initially as a way to solve cubic and higher order equations. Physics a la Newton and the like started a century later; practical applications of complex numbers would therefore seem to me to postdate their discovery or invention. I don’t see solving a cubic equation analytically to have a great deal of real world usage, especially when you don’t have a theoretical framework with which to make real world predictions about phenomena of interest. This is not to say that there were no pre-Newton scientists, by the way. And honestly, go talk to some of these hard-core pure mathematicians and see how many of them are doing things with real-world applications; they distinguish pure from applied math for a reason, eh? 🙂 > [@](#): > > **Do you think it’s never been physically tested? You _can_ solve equations using imaginary numbers, and you _can_ test the results in real-world situations. If the results had come out as gibberish, the idea would have been discarded.** Except that this isn’t what happened, is it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/souls-do-not-exist/164849.md?page=9)