Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) was the foremost logician of the twentieth century. He is best known for his incompleteness theorems and contributions to set theory, changing the course of mathematics, logic, and computer science. In addition, he advanced an argument for personal immortality which I reconstruct—in order to give it the best chance of success—as follows:
1) If the world is rationally organized, then human life must also be rational (since humans are a part of the world);
2) Science gives us reason to believe the world is rationally organized;
thus
3) Human life must be rationally organized.
4) But without personal immortality, human life wouldn’t be rational (since our potential for personal development and interpersonal relationships would be thwarted by death); thus
5) Humans must be personally immortal so that they can fulfill their potential (in the afterlife).
Or to put it somewhat differently,
1)We have good reasons to think the world makes sense (is intelligible);
2)Human life is part of the world; thus
3)We have good reasons to think human life makes sense (is intelligible);
4)But human life only makes sense if there is personal immortality; thus
5)We have good reasons to believe in personal immortality.
Here is some of this in Gödel’s own words,
If the world is rationally organised and has meaning, then it [personal immortality] must be the case. For what sort of a meaning would it have to bring about a being (the human being) with such a wide field of possibilities for personal development and relationships to others, only then to let him achieve not even 1/1,000th of it?
So, among other things, it is the world’s shortcomings—including pain and suffering—that demand immortality for life to be rational and meaningful. For Gödel, it is the next world that liberates us from our earthly limitations. Otherwise, we cannot actualize the potentials that a rational existence demands.
My Reflections
First, let me say that it is always easier to tear down arguments instead of building them up. A professor in graduate school once told me that philosophers make arguments and then other philosophers, like vultures, swoop in and destroy them—a good way to get published.
Next, Gödel’s phrase “rationally organized and has meaning” is problematic. It seems that human lives and the world may be scientifically rational or intelligible, but that doesn’t imply that human lives are meaningful. It seems easy enough to imagine a scientifically intelligible world in which human lives are meaningless. So I’m not sure about the relationship between the rational and the meaningful.
Surprisingly, though I agree with a lot of Gödel’s argument. I have argued elsewhere that either personal or universal immortality is necessary for complete meaning. So I agree that a fully rational/meaningful individual life and cosmic life demand that something is eternal. The problem is that we have good reasons to think that both the individual and cosmic life are not eternal. For this and many other reasons, reality may not be rationally or meaningfully organized.
Finally, let me say that the idea that we survive death, broadly speaking, is highly unlikely,
Modern science generally ignores this supposed evidence for an afterlife for multiple reasons. First, the idea of an immortal soul plays no explanatory or predictive role in the scientific study of human beings. Second, overwhelming evidence supports the view that consciousness ceases when brain functioning does. If ghosts, souls, or disembodied spirits exist, then some of the most basic ideas of modern science are mistaken—which is very unlikely.
So while personal immortality based on supernatural considerations is logically possible, it’s easy to see that it isn’t very plausible. In the end, wishful thinking best explains belief in immortality, not reason and evidence. Therefore, I live under the assumption that my consciousness depends on a functioning brain, and when my brain ceases to function so will I. When I die, I doubt that I’ll move to a better neighborhood.
But as always, I could be mistaken.
Sure, while we are alive, and rational ( or maybe even irrational at times), we want (or might want), to believe (and hope) for an afterlife. There is nothing, per se wrong with such hope. It can be characterized as dreaming. Or, wishful thinking. There is nothing wrong, immoral, or unethical about it. It may, however, be classed as erroneous. we commit errors frequently and those are, generally, unintentional. Godel, as a logician, would have known this. Often, we rationalize about things. This can make us feel better, whether it is either right or erroneous. So, we can dream—that is wishful and not usually harmful, per se. It is not usually harmful to be wishful. Or, wistful. My tablet knows this.
A wise man once told me, “Never die for something you believe in; you could be mistaken.” It seems applicable here.
Should we not instead occupy ourselves doubting our assumed reality? So many moving parts are overwhelming and beg questions. To doubt reality’s function and fitness seems a reasonable affair, and a worthy endeavor. To doubt an afterlife seems irrational. Why doubt it at all?
What reason does one have to doubt an afterlife? Rather, if reality is a thing (a reasonable assumption), then let’s call afterlife, “no-thing.” We can fill the “no-thing” with some illusory meaning—if we like. But is it not still no-thing? Why absurdly assume it has a state, condition, or quality. It even seems silly when written out. I, for one, can’t divorce “doubt” from “assumption.” Can any reasonable man do so? It is reasonable to both doubt and assume reality, but neither with the afterlife. In the words of the great philosopher, William Everett Preston, “Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. You gotta have something, if you want to dance with me.” 🙂
My cynical reaction: anthropocentric hope wreathed in high-minded intellectualism.
I remember that song.
Just based on this snippet of these 5 steps of a thought ladder, they strike me as being based more on a premise than an established Truth.
Does Herr Godel offer any justification of the priori that the world is “rationally organized”?
The world may very well be rationally organized, but all I am able to say with some certainty is :
1. It exists as a physical reality.
2. It works, in the sense that it continues to exist following the laws of the universe.
3. Which hence can be argued means our existence…or other life form existence….is merely an accident of happenstance to this, or any other world.
4. Which leads to the question as to just why NOT being immortal lacks rationality? Or, expressed another way, why does being personally immortal make it possible to “fulfill their potential”?
5. Can being mortal just be a fact of biological existence?
For that matter, it is my understanding that the current cosmological model of the universe itself is that it is ‘mortal’. In a time period of less than eternity it will be an environment of absolute zero, with black holes dissolving into just elementary particles.
6. To borrow from Marx’s thoughts about opium, maybe we should just “sing in the sunshine” (as the song says)
and enjoy our blip while it lasts and hope that those that follow can enjoy theirs.
This is another great subject Dr. John, thank you!
I don’t think humans will ever achieve immortality, at least not by their own conscious volition. of course I could be wrong, Humans can imagine what they think being immortal would be like!,,but they can not really know in reality what that would be like, perhaps it wouldn’t be as pleasant an existence as we might imagine it would be?
Humanity is an evolutionary creature, we, in a large part are regressing physically and emotionally, while some sectors of society are making impressive strides in the electronic field, how will these advances effect us? What are the advances being used for?
We have recently seen, to great Fanfare, the birth of Artificial Intelligence, or AI, artificial is the operative word, it seems that the unstated goal is to create an Artificial Reality or AR for people to live in, a World controlled by the Artificial Intelligence machine owned by ‘someone’ who then can imagine that they are Really a God on Earth.
There is a reality that under pins and supports humans and their conjectures, as long as that reality can support us we can continue to seek the things we think we want.
A few comments on what Mr Godel said,
“1) If the world is rationally organized, then human life must also be rational (since humans are a part of the world);
2) Science gives us reason to believe the world is rationally organized;
thus
3) Human life must be rationally organized.”
Human life ‘is’ rationally organized to the extent that the force that organizes all life as a symbiotic whole has control over it, the parts of our lives that actually allow us to live, are not under our conscious control but under the control of ‘Nature’ or our nature. These are all the autonomous functions that regulate our physical being, when the physical man dies conscious man dies with him, What is nature? I don’t know with certainty, but it isn’t a God that knows everyone by name and rewards those it likes, and punishes those it doesn’t, it, seemingly, doesn’t care who or what lives or dies, but while you still have the capacity for life it attempts to regulate the operation of your internal organs, the more humans become obsessed with the operation of their organs the more distressed their organs and their lives become.
Anthropocentric man lives in the organism regulated by nature, anthropocentric man, really Egocentric man, is often unaware of the force that regulates his physical existence and wishes to imagine that the World he is conscious of, and describes with language is the only world there is, indeed he imagines that if only he could imagine and describe another world he could think and speak it into existence!
This is the ‘I am a God on Earth” delusion. Many people with the right props want to play that role.
We have recently had a chance to ponder the size of the universe and how long is eternity really, and how far is infinity, very long and very far are the rational conclusions we me must accept.
Mankind isn’t primarily a rational creature,it has learned rationality by working with numbers and other things that are unaffected by emotion , but we are emotional creatures and our true peace is in having our emotional needs met, emotional needs are usually met by other creatures that come within arms length of us, peace at home doesn’t mean peace in the world but it does mean a peaceful refuge for you and yours. ‘All best regards to everyone”
I don’t find his argument convincing either. As for the death of the universe I have written a bit about this. As best we know the universe will die with the caveat that we can’t know with certainty about such matters. And I try to enjoy the little brief moments too.
Just a note. He is arguing for a religious afterlife.
So, this is a piece of why we philosophize, isn’t it? We are philosophers after all. Godel posited an argument for immortality. All good. As philosophers, we argue, debate and often differ on notions such as reality, time, infinity, etc. We cannot all be right in our assessments. As a practical matter, we are probably all wrong. Again, all good. And, still more fun than a migraine headache or bullet wound. Take it from me, bullet wounds are no fun. Arguing, discussing, and debating with conscious, thinking individuals is overarching, to use an old characterization. I would rather do this than be shot. All, extremely good. Lecture on deontology and etiology(?) completed. Didn’t take long, did it?
Prof. Messerly,
Thank you for the “I have written” link imbedded in your reply. It was pertinent and enjoyable.
At the risk of veering these comments off topic, this internal link is a major reason that I visit this site regularly, and it has become my most used source for concise ‘reflective thought’. (If I want more, then books…of which some I have been alerted to on this website)
I am certain there are other excellent web sites/blogs, but I have found yours to be so well organized and easy to use that it is my ‘go to’. Using your subject headers, I always find something of interest, which often refer to another post etc
I wish to also thank the other commenters as well. They add a diversity and richness.
(contrary to the current political zeitgeist, I still think diversity is a good thing)
Some of the best years of my life were my grad school time—non stop philosophical exchange.
thanks so much for your kind words Lyle. My grandkids, if they so desire, will have a lot to read from grandpa.
Afterthought and aside:
I wonder if Godel and Alan Turing ever crossed paths? Maybe yes, probably no. Newton and Leibnitz (spelling?) worked on the Calculus at roughly the same time, I think. There seems controversy around this, pride of authorship, origin and all that: who came first, etc. I do not know if Turing thought about immortality—he had more concrete things on his plate. Still, great minds can think alike, or, they can differ. Fools are only fools. Ahem…
Greetings and warm regards,
Van Pelt.
According to AI “While there is no concrete evidence that Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing ever met in person, they were contemporaries working in the field of mathematical logic and likely were aware of each other’s work, particularly due to their contributions to the “Entscheidungsproblem” (decision problem) around the same time period; however, there is no documented interaction or correspondence between the two mathematicians.”
An afterthought: a few years back there was a delightful TV series on Netflix: “The Good Place”. This may be hard to believe, but it mixed philosophy with comedy and religion — and it was hilarious. Its episode on The Trolley Problem was great. Anyway, the group of protagonists eventually make it to heaven, but after a while they decide to terminate their existence. Immortality, in their view, isn’t what it was cracked up to be.
Two other TV series distantly addressed some of these issues. The first was “Lucifer”, a fairly standard buddy detective piece, with the twist that one of the pair is Lucifer himself, who has grown tired of running Hell and wants a vacation. What’s interesting here is the take on the meaning of hell.
The other was “Upload”, about a company that offers people virtual immortality after they physically die. This one isn’t so good; while it is funny, it doesn’t dive into any philosophical issues.
I enjoyed “the good place.” it was really fun.