More on Gödel’s

As the discussion on my previous blog post got rolling, Vinaire posted an excellent comment that I thought warranted a blog post on its own.

Reference links:

Vinaire’s comment:

Godel’s incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic. I do not know if Godel’s argument can be extended to as complex a system as the universe.


de•ter•min•ism (noun)
1. the doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws.
2. the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.

axiomatic system
In mathematics, an axiomatic system is any set of axioms from which some or all axioms can be used in conjunction to logically derive theorems.

A set of axioms is complete if, for any statement in the axioms’ language, either that statement or its negation is provable from the axioms.

A set of axioms is (simply) consistent if there is no statement such that both the statement and its negation are provable from the axioms.

e·nu·mer·ate verb (used with object)
1. to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis.
2. to ascertain the number of; count.

effectively generated
A formal theory is said to be effectively generated if there is a computer program that, in principle, could enumerate all the axioms of the theory without listing any statements that are not axioms. This is equivalent to the existence of a program that enumerates all the theorems of the theory without enumerating any statements that are not theorems.

Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem states that:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory…

Gödel’s theorem shows that, in theories that include a small portion of number theory, a complete and consistent finite list of axioms can never be created, nor even an infinite list that can be enumerated by a computer program. Each time a new statement is added as an axiom, there are other true statements that still cannot be proved, even with the new axiom. If an axiom is ever added that makes the system complete, it does so at the cost of making the system inconsistent.

There are complete and consistent lists of axioms for arithmetic that cannot be enumerated by a computer program. For example, one might take all true statements about the natural numbers to be axioms (and no false statements), which gives the theory known as “true arithmetic”. The difficulty is that there is no mechanical way to decide, given a statement about the natural numbers, whether it is an axiom of this theory, and thus there is no effective way to verify a formal proof in this theory.

This may mean that if this universe (with both its physical and spiritual aspects) can be expressed through a consistent set of principles, then there is a truth about this universe that cannot be demonstrated using those set of principles. That truth may look at this universe (as a whole) exactly for what it is. Such a truth may not be derivable from the set of principles that supposedly describe the universe.

Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem states that:

For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent.

The second incompleteness theorem does not rule out consistency proofs altogether, only consistency proofs that could be formalized in the theory that is proved consistent. The second incompleteness theorem is similar to the Liar’s paradox, “This sentence is false,” which contains an inherent contradiction about its truth value.

This may mean that this universe cannot contain the ultimate truth about itself. The ultimate truth is unknowable from the reference point of this universe.

If we go by the definition of determinism that all facts and events exemplify natural laws, we cannot say for certain if that is true or not. In other words, not everything may be predictable ahead of its occurrence.

Manifestations may be related to each other in strict logical sequence meaning that any manifestation may be shown to follow from another manifestation. However, it may be impossible to determine how a manifestation may come to be on its own. This is another version of saying, “Absolutes are unattainable.”

So a system may be deterministic only in a relative sense. It can neither be absolutely deterministic, nor can it be absolutely non-deterministic.

Link to article on Vinaire’s blog: Gödel and Determinism

162 thoughts on “More on Gödel’s

  1. The theorems can only be extended to the universe if the universe itself is a mathematical statement, Indeed it does look like it is – math does seem to work awfully well in it – but Godel would appear to state that if the universe is self-consistent then it cannot be described purely in mathematical terms that are themselves completely consistent.
    I do wonder if the evident fact of the existence of emergent phenomena is related to this idea.

    1. The problem with emergence is that you cannot build a higher dimension object out of objects with a lower dimension. Or put in another way: Nothing can beget something with a potential higher than itself.

      1. Who said?

        Soil, seed, air, sun, and water all combine to create a plant. Plants combine to create a forest, which gives homes to animals, which create an ecosystem.

        Soil, seed, air, sun and water are not an ecosystem, are they?


        1. Al, Geir said: “Nothing can beget something with a potential higher than itself.”

          you said: “Soil, seed, air, sun, and water all combine to create a plant. Plants combine to create a forest, which gives homes to animals, which create an ecosystem.

          Soil, seed, air, sun and water are not an ecosystem, are they?”

          Me: The components of the ecosystem always have a greater potential than the ecosystem. It doesn’t matter how complex the ecosystem becomes, it still cannot have more mass and energy than what went into it.

          You might say that humans for instance have much more potential than the planet we are on, but that is not true, it’s just an apparency. We can explode nuclear bombs, but the energy they release was always in the uranium. We can send Shuttles into space but there’s still no new energy – it was all in the Shuttle’s tanks and cargo bay anyway. The energy to drive all of that came from the sun, and the raw materials to make the planet came out of what the sun was in it’s previous life.

          In short, no matter how much potential you think the system has, that potential (and more) was always already there.

          1. splog: In short, no matter how much potential you think the system has, that potential (and more) was always already there.

            Yea, like! Reminds me of someone once said that you are greater than anyone let’s you believe. So one should not ever put a limit on.

          2. Alan: In short, no matter how much potential you think the system has, that potential (and more) was always already there.

            Chris: Really good post. Pulling the parts together so easy to understand.

          3. Splog wrote:

            The components of the ecosystem always have a greater potential than the ecosystem. It doesn’t matter how complex the ecosystem becomes, it still cannot have more mass and energy than what went into it.

            I had so much HOPE for Emergence Theory. And here you just smashed it. I was hoping that Emergence Theory could be used to explain the evolution of life on Earth, and maybe even consciousness itself.

            It looks like I’ll have to go back to being a Scientologist again.

            Thanks a lot.


            1. I forgot to click the little button to get mailed updates on this thread, so the reply is a wee bit late.

              Don’t give up on Emergence just yet – it’s still a truly beautiful thing. It explains snowflakes and those amazing fractal pictures, and how a fertilized ovum can change into a foetus and into a baby then an adult. Or caterpillars into butterflies.

              But I don’t think it explains evolution, I think you only need entropy to figure out the basics of that one.

              But I do like the question of consciousness. Unless I’m severely deluded and completely misunderstand consciousness[1], nothing I’ve ever read explains that one. I’d like to explore that one sometime, even though we’ve had several cracks at it already.

              [1] It must be said, this is well within the bounds of possibility.


            2. Alan: But I don’t think it explains evolution, I think you only need entropy to figure out the basics of that one.

              Chris: Not at all Alan. To me, entropy is simply the universe unwinding. As Godel says, there is much more a priori knowledge left to be known than all that is currently known. A reference that I post from time to time is to the cellular automata described in NEW KIND OF SCIENCE. Steven Wolfram’s book is free online. I will probably hawk this book for a while as though easy to understand, seems slow to bite the fancy of readers. For anyone fascinated by fractal graphics, etc., this material is must read and corollary to understanding how simple rules iterated in quantity create the most fascinating designs, often mimicking Nature so precisely that sometimes I want to jump for joy — like an explorer having found that precious thing which was his goal..

              I like your view and emphasis of emergence. Likewise, these types of simple concepts hold momentous portent in a universe made of little more than a plethora of space and time.

  2. I question the primary assumption that mathematical proof is evidence of truth, and that truth can or should be invariably expressible mathematically.

    1. Basically, mathematics is examination of rules and their consequences. Any set of rules can be examined by mathematics. Rules are not basic truths, though IMO. But basic truth can thus not be examined, only experienced, IMHO

      1. Perhaps in this physical mode, we cannot experience a truth higher than ourselves. Our very lives depend on a concept of birth and death. Perhaps the after-death mode is so different, that the truth of that mode works as well for us as math does in this mode. That might be a higher truth, it might be a lower truth, it might be an unrelated truth that requires a higher truth than either life or after-death that explains it all.

        IMHO, the journey is the important part.

        1. aussiesheila1: Our very lives depend on a concept of birth and death. Perhaps the after-death mode is so different, that the truth of that mode works as well for us as math does in this mode.

          Chris: Profoundly stated. This is where my research is leading.

      2. I would think that mathematic truths are really quite critical when there is a specific and consistent outcome desired. I am not so sure that mathematics describes some of the random elements that result in innovation, mutation, and unforseen progressions or changes. I know that the hope of science is that it is all ultimately rule-bound, but I am not sure that it really is at the heart of it. I guess I am saying the same thing as you are as regards basic truth not being expressible in terms of rules, etc.

        1. Maria: I guess I am saying the same thing as you are as regards basic truth not being expressible in terms of rules, etc.

          Chris: Me too. It’s exhilarating.

  3. Mathematics is the highest science we have – the most consistently accurate and true, the one that has had the most far-reaching hard proof of workability. Mathematics is the science that made possible our intricate knowledge of the other hard sciences. Satellites. Worldwide energy. Mathematics makes it possible to create things, see things, experience things beyond our limited senses.

    But mathematics has errors/incompleteness even at its most basic levels. Gödel pointed them out. “Zero” was one example. What exactly is a “zero”, anyway? Why do we need to include it when it is a nothing and where does nothing exist? (You Indies will love to play with that one, I’m sure… heh heh)

    So Gödel doesn’t say math is perfect – only that it is the most perfect science we have (It is). Since it has flaws/incompleteness/errors, then there must exist a higher truth than math.

    The lesser/lower the truth, the more difficult it is to apply, the more problems, the more inconsistent, the more contradictions, the less physical, solid results. Thus Scientology is a lower truth than math. Thus there exists a higher truth than math, one that does not have errors/inconsistencies we can find.

    Truth is like a pyramid. Flaws at lower levels become more and more magnified as we try to build on them but cannot – and the house of cards falls, each time we build with a truth that is not so universal as we initially hope.

    Oh yeh, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies. To everything. There is a higher truth, a better pattern, a better math, a better concept of zero. We might become aware of it, or it might not even be possible when we, ourselves, are flawed and operating flawed, limited lives ridden with death, disease and limitations.

    Rather than disagree with Gödel, it would be nice to see Vinaire marry the concepts and take it further. Vinaire’s counter-arguments are circular. Gödel’s logic has never received an comparable counter-argument. Gödel blows the socks off logic and takes it to exciting new heights.

    1. aiussieshela1: Since it has flaws/incompleteness/errors, then there must exist a higher truth than math.

      Chris: I’ve been wondering if our sense of truth is confined to the reality of this universe. In other words, I’ve wondered if there is no greater truth beyond what we can know. That truth that we do know being relative, conditioned, and impermanent simply refines as we zoom outward and inward further. Written another way, is our assertion that there is ultimate truth a contrived notion with no particular basis in fact? Is there any evidence that the answer to my question is “yes”? Currently, I don’t think so.

      1. Great insights, Chris.

        IMHO, there are higher truths but the flaws built into the very acts of life and living (i.e., death, decay) make those higher truths unknowable as mankind.

        We have glimpses, though. We see how true compassion or love eventually dissolves just about any conflict. We occasionally feel the joy of unlimited space, no concept of time or complete harmony with others.

        IMHO, those moments must be temporary because as we are, we are temporary. We can’t survive/live without space and time. Challenge without any conflict might be boring. We’ll change form when we die. What will that be like? Will there be a period of bliss without personal consciousness, a connectedness to the all with little or no personal identity, or will there be another place of existence outside birth, death and time?

        We can’t really answer those questions. They are beyond our living experience, but not beyond our imagination.

        Personally, I’m happy with the glimpses and see a higher truth having more to do with better connectedness and understanding between all life than an increased separation/individuation. Then everyone knows everything. And maybe that’s our native state – or, failing that, the ideal state we hope to reach.

        Just some of my personal thoughts on this. 😉

        1. Aussie: Just some of my personal thoughts on this. 😉

          I like your personal thoughts. In reading many different view about afterlife, many said the same in that you get whatever you wish for or think it will be.

          “We’ll change form when we die. What will that be like?” Yes, hard to communicate with no voice and hard to accept comm without words. Therefore the person still in body, on earth and the other in spirit need to adjust quite a bit.

  4. Mathematics is very fine logic. Logic is essentially made up of associations. There cannot be any absolutes in logic because for there to be logic there must be association, and for there to be association there must be two things. Two things mean relativity. Therefore. the basis of logic is relativity (as in associations).

    Mathematics is very fine association that stresses consistency throughout. Such consistency must be mutual (relative). It cannot be referenced by something absolute, which itself cannot be referenced.

    All manifestations in this universe are relative to each other. None of the manifestations can be absolute for this universe to be logical.

    It is this relative and consistent nature of this universe which is perceived as space and time.


        1. But that’s only inconsistent with YOUR axioms. I see you have no answer to the question. Thought so. 🙂

          1. Please don’t assume. That is not mindfulness. 🙂

            What is Axiom One anchored on? Or, are all other axioms anchored on Axiom One?


            1. I didn’t think I was making an assumption – I’ve read what you’ve posted about Axiom 1 as compared to your own views. But I don’t want to Q&A, so forget that.

              The question is – is the system consistent within itself or not? Let’s not get into other things beyond the theorems that state a system cannot be both complete and consistent. So without further Q & A, can you just answer the question?

            2. Your answer lies in my questions to you.

              Only you can answer your questions for yourself. I can only help you by refining the questions.

              But the answer must come from you.



            3. I make a try every once in a while to actually get you to follow through on a discussion. But this again is your usual B.S. Sayonara, amigo.

            4. marildi: actually get you to follow through on a discussion.

              I must admit I follow you and would be interested in it too, but get nowhere. Examples are an excellent help too.

            5. Oh no. There were several more exchanges, before not me but Vinaire blew. Then Sheila picked up the ball a bit, and then it probably got late there in Aussieland. Alanzo piped up and then disappeared. He probably has MU’s. 🙂

            6. Sorry, Marildi. I don’t respond too well to “Convince me!”. I am not here to convince anybody of anything. I simply offer in total honesty what appears consistent to me. Beyond that I simply encourage others to look.

              I truly believe that gains come from a person looking for oneself and not from the answers given by others. Others may only guide one’s looking.

              That is exactly what Scientology processes do.

              If you disagree with what I am saying, then simply ignore it and remain true to how it appears to you.

              Go with Peace!


            7. Vin: I truly believe that gains come from a person looking for oneself and not from the answers given by others. Others may only guide one’s looking.

              DeE: Debatable. Yes, a person looking for oneself, BUT he can look at answers given by another, accept or deny them. One is still guiding one’s looking. Unless you think that whatever one looks at one believes, as made to be in scientology, otherwise why wouldn’t you give someone an answer to possibly open their mind or not. Is there a fear of responsibility or failure?

            8. Dee, I have written plenty on the subject of Axiom one that can be taken as answer. If that is all ignored and not commented on, and questions are continued to be asked, then it becomes an interrogation rather than a discussion. A discussion has to be two way. It is disrespect to ignore what one has already written by not commenting on it. If one disagrees with something then one must say what inconsistencies one sees there.


            9. More Q&A. I wasn’t asking you about Axiom 1. That is such an obvious Red Herring.

              To repeat, I was asking if the Axioms as a system are consistent. And you’re still trying to rabbit with irrelevant comments, hoping you can get away with it, but you’re not fooling anybody.

            10. I am sorry Marildi. I don’t find it helpful to have discussion with you. It is quite unproductive.




            11. There’s no discussion going on. You cannot have one. You refuse to have one. That’s the whole problem.

            12. I had nothing to lose. But I see you yourself want the last word, always defending your gurus. Or anybody, for that matter – as long as it’s opposed to me. Obsessed, I say.

            13. At least I was willing to hear what Vinaire or Chris had to say. But they’re chicken sh..ts.

            14. Vin: Proper discussion can occur only when mindfulness is present on both sides.

              Dee: Oh here we go again. Can’t we have conversation along with discussion of a topic for some randomity. Seems most do it rather well usually.

            15. Okay, what isn’t consistent within them? (Not that I I think you’ll actually answer, or that you even have an answer. Hot air.)

            16. It just occurred to me – you probably don’t have any concept of what it means that a system is consistent or not.

            17. “I simply offer in total honesty what appears consistent to me.”

              That’s all I was asking. There was nothing in my words that said “Convince me”. I was simply asking you a question to get your opinion. It’s one I’ve asked other people too and I am actually interested in knowing if any inconsistencies can been found.

              What you wrote is an answer to some other question. Yes, it’s a response – but it isn’t an answer to the question. If you don’t want to answer it, just say so. Or if you can’t, just say so. But to tell me to think for myself has nothing to do with it. I was simply asking for YOUR ideas on the matter. This isn’t a question about anybody’s personal ideas, for Pete’s sake – it’s about a written system of Axioms, on which people can share viewpoints of its consistency or lack of.

              Maybe you have no answer and that’s fine. But if so, have the intellectual integrity to admit it instead of responding to me in a condescending way in order to deflect away from you the fact of evading the question.

              But I am sure that you will still not answer, so I’ll also say go in peace.

            18. Wow, you really do not get how you Q&A. That’s some filter you got going for yourself.

            19. Marildi, you do not get how you reject data which is contrary to your; opposes your confirmation bias. It is wearisome to spoon feed you the inconsistencies in the Standard Tech of Scientology which you should be noticing for yourself.

            20. I get it. You’re not going to answer any questions either. Only claim that they’ve been answered, which is BS. If you can’t give a simple, to the point answer to my questions, it simply means you haven’t got one. Hot air, expelled bombastically is all you got.

            21. Dee, I just don’t want to aggravate somebody who has already decided that what I write is bullshit. I have nothing new to say to that person. A proper discussion occurs only in an environment where respect is shown.


            22. Now, that right there is bullshit. There was no disrespect shown until it was deserved by you – and you know it, IF you can at least be honest with yourself.

            23. Hi deE, Marildi views our discussions as an ongoing debate on Scientology — something which can be won. I don’t see what we are doing on our blogs in that same way. I mostly inquire from the viewpoint of I don’t know and then when I debate a point, I mean to exploit any weakness in the point and not the person. When I slip up and get snarky or go after a person, I regret it.

              As an example, the discussion on Axiom 1 of Scientology has been very well worn out with Axiom 1 being shown to be fallacious outside the metes and bounds of Scientology. Yet Marildi asks Vin whether he can name any inconsistencies in the axioms of Scientology. This is not a sincere inquiry on her part but an attempt to draw Vin into an emotional and fallacious argument as she does not look at these inconsistencies and address or confront them as they are presented. Vin has his issues too but sticks to his research and his output in this area is impressive. Yes, he still makes pronouncements a bit condescending at times, but it is just his style and culture and do not seem to faze his ability to review and correct or begin again even after going quite a ways down a particular line of thinking. Additionally, this is a defensive posture as when he is in a safer environment such as on his or my blog, he doesn’t really do this at all. When he is unhappy with the consistency of his work, he scraps it and begins again. In this regard, he has really earned my respect as he has scrapped mountains of writing and begun again, several times this year. Not many writers have the heart to go to this much trouble. Also, Vin is very forthcoming and honest about himself and experiences in Scientology whereas Marildi is still in the closet. She is in the closet out of a fear of something which would be for her to explain. Saying that may sound mean, maybe its mean. Marildi has shown for an years that she is not inquiring into Scientology as she already knows that Scientology is correct. Her comments and references are in the form of proving Scientology and Hubbard to be consistent and the best method for improving humans no matter the evidence to the contrary. Her misunderstanding is over the difference between the consistency of Scientology within the bubble of Scientology vs. the inconsistency of Scientology when viewed from outside the bubble of Scientology. What she is doing that is wrong is trying to apply Scientology outside its own frame of reference and she refuses to believe that someone like me can understand what she is talking about and grant that Scientology is consistent within its own self defined context.

              Vinaire is a new and improved Vinaire with a lot to contribute. Marildi has my respect as an excellent researcher and writer with a lot to contribute but until her brainwashed status of true believer in Scientology is modified, her comments here aside from here friendly social comments are going to be mostly ignored as Scientology is quickly falling into the category of old hat. I and a few others have moved on with our thinking. I didn’t want to go on so long about this but just kept typing. Guilty of excessive typing on a computer.

            24. Chris: Guilty of excessive typing on a computer.

              Dee: Ha, ha, know what you mean and am guilty myself elsewhere.
              Really, you have explained wonderfully and I thank you for that, and I understand far better. I’m also getting to know others and learning a lot, which is fun too 🙂

            25. Chris; The greater understanding we have of one another, the greater our capacity for tolerance.

              That could go into a nutshell and sent to the moon, savored and digested. 🙂
              Maybe we all learn what we need from this fantastic blog Isene provides us with. He’s a great mod when needed, teacher and of course our favorite guru. Interesting evening! 🙂 Shuffling off now…

            26. Chris; The problem I have with Vinaire and other gurus or wannabe gurus is that their teachings doesn’t seem to bit on them. Vinaire doesn’t seem to practice mindfulness at all – and far from it. He’s not a good example of what he himself talks about. That is the biggest turn-off on any guru-teaching.

    1. Vin: Mathematics is very fine logic.

      Chris: Yes, I would add it is a very fine language fused with mechanics and encapsulated in such a way to make it portable. Witness the photon. Our abstraction of what a photon brings from very great distances makes the photon a wonderful (the original?) communication packet. Mathematics decodes this packet into information.

    2. Vin: It is this relative and consistent nature of this universe which is perceived as space and time.

      Chris: Please say more about why this universe has a consistent nature. Do we know that?

      1. (1) We will not know of the exact nature of this universe until all filters are dissolved. We perceive both consistency and inconsistency in this universe.

        (2) Consistency seems to decrease the number of variables, whereas, inconsistency seems to increase them.

        (3) To understand the basic nature of the universe, we need to decrease the number of variables. We do that by looking beyond the derived variables and recognize the independent variables.

        (4)This way we have narrowed down to space and time, and,thus, have gained consistency.


  5. “The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” ~ Buddha


    How can we express the above mathematically?

    We may say that the location (origin) used to refer to the locations of all other objects is not absolute. That origin may be selected arbitrarily. We may say that the duration (eternity) against which to measure the duration of all other objects is not absolute. That eternity may be selected arbitrarily. And then we select an arbitrary unit of measure, and fix it. Now we have a consistent dimension on which all things relative may be placed.

    This is what gives us three dimensions of space; and the dimension of time. These are the primary dimensions. Beyond these we have derived dimensions of mass, velocity, temperature, etc.

    When we try to think beyond physical space-time, we run into mental speculation. We then find ourselves in a mental space-time. This is real to the degree that all associations have been kept consistent. We have simply shifted from concreteness to abstraction. This provides us with a super-dimension of abstraction that runs across the primary dimensions of space-time.

    Thus, it is the relative nature of this universe which is perceived as space and time.




  6. Beyond physical senses there is only the mental sense(s). This is where lies speculation as well as the perception of truth. We use the scientific method along with mathematics to turn speculations and conjectures into more consistent theories, laws and principles. These then become truths to the degree they are consistent.

    Thus, we move from physical into the mental dimension of abstraction.

    Truth depends on consistency in the dimension of abstraction.


    1. Vin: Thus, we move from physical into the mental dimension of abstraction.

      Chris: I have now become confused on this difference. It seems my confusion concerns the dimension of individuality.

      1. The traditional dimensions of individuality seems to be “body – mind – spirit.” It is starting from physical and moving in the direction of mental and spiritual through greater abstraction.

        The model of existence that I am working with is “manifestation – filter – perception.” I have not yet tied it with individuality yet.

        Individuality would be a “manifestation” that has dimensions starting from physical and extending toward mental and spiritual. Generally, this individuality is “perceived” through a “filter.” This perception then somehow feeds back into forming the individuality.

        I shall contemplate on it further. This is a good area to look into more closely.


    2. VIn: Truth depends on consistency in the dimension of abstraction.

      Chris: All perception seems to be the result of abstraction. I can really use this model of truth as “consistency in the dimension of abstraction.”

      The abstractions seem be a phenomena of space-time, and your model of the individual as the weighted center of this particular type of gathering of space-time seems to work for me.

      1. Yes, I haven’t looked at it much. I think that the model of “manifestation – filter – perception” may be quite helpful here.


  7. Scientology Axiom 1 is presented as a theoretical absolute by L. Ron Hubbard. As long as it is considered theoretical, it is in the realm of a conjecture. It is OK as a conjecture.

    But the moment one says that Axiom #1 is absolute truth, then we have inconsistency with this other statement by L. Ron Hubbard that Absolutes are unobtainable.

    My allegiance is to my own honesty and integrity. The task ahead of me does not lie in the direction of compromising my integrity just to please another person. I am sworn to presenting my honest observations, and correcting myself when I find myself to be inconsistent.


    1. “Scientology Axiom 1 is presented as a theoretical absolute by L. Ron Hubbard.”

      Where? Axiom 1 is a statement, just like any other axiom. You are simply REACTING to it out of your own considerations.

      1. Marildi, I don’t often agree with Vinaire, but he really did answer your question.

        Axiom 1 has no basis in reality. It is a standalone statement, unsupported by any facts. It is a supposition, just a thought, like Xenu. Not an Axiom at all. It is theoretical, not factual, starts from nowhere, not even a scientifically plausible explanation for the beginnings of life. Even the Adam and Eve story was on less shaky footing than Axiom 1 – at least the sequence of the creation of the world was biologically sensible.

        Just look up the words axiom, theoretical, absolute, supposition. Vinaire gave you a good answer.

        The Axioms are a science fiction story, nothing more. You are welcome to believe them if it suits you, but they are not actually axioms, at least, not in the respectable way the English-speaking world defines axioms. L Ron just called them that to make them sound important.

        Personally, I like the concept of creating dimension (space) by adding more points of view and thought that particular spin by Hubbard was pretty clever. IMHO, it’s just got nothing to do with The Beginning. To me, it means wherever one feels a big distance or space with a person, it’s best to study their culture, learn about them and do what you can to assume their viewpoint. Doing so is called compassion. It makes us feel bigger, somehow. 🙂

        1. Sheila, would you agree that definition #2 applies to Axiom 1, whether one agrees with the Axiom or not. From there, the question is, are all the axioms consistent?

          1. a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit

          2. a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate

          3. an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

        2. Aussie: ….. I like the concept of creating dimension (space) by adding more points of view and thought that particular spin by Hubbard was pretty clever………

          Dee: Thanks, understood your answer clearer than Vin’s. Guess it’s how the words are expressed and that makes no one wrong, just misunderstood. ?

      2. It’s axiomatic to Scientology. Now that it has been falsified, it unravels the broad usefulness of the whole cloth of Scientology – outside the set of Scientology – on which axiomatic loom it has been woven.

            1. Well, I’m a pretty thorough reader most of the time and I would have noted such a thing. How could Axiom 1 possibly be “falsifed”? Let’s see if Chris has blown or will come up with some supposed answer.

            2. Yes, he has so resisted that he’s collapsed terminals with LRH. Except that he’s doing a poor job in the valence he has mocked up. 🙂

    2. Very good comments. Scientology Axiom 1 is axiomatic to Scientology and that is all it is axiomatic to: The model of Scientology. Once I saw this, confusion about the inconsistencies of Scientology cleared up abruptly.

      1. Thanks, Chris. And for your earlier comment as well. I agree. Scientology is only axiomatic to Scientology. Viewing from outside the Scn bubble finds it loaded with contradictions, falsehoods and unworkability.

  8. Marildi, you seem to have some sort of basic misunderstanding about consistency.

    Consistency does not equal truth. Any good novel-writer can spin a consistent yarn.

    As for definitions:
    Def 1: Hubbard’s axioms are not maxims, not widely accepted and have no intrinsic merit, so not axioms in any scientific sense.
    Def 2 is not a scientific definition. It’s also incomplete. You can use anything as a basis for argument, that doesn’t make it an axiom.
    Def 3 doesn’t apply, either. Hubbard’s axioms are neither self-evident truths or established rules or principles.

    BTW, didn’t Hubbard tell you not to use Merriam-Webster? Tch tch, Marildi! 😉

    1. Contrary to popular belief, I don’t accept everything LRH said just because he said it. 🙂 Especially if it was said in the context of another era, i.e. out of current context.

      So if you don’t think #2 is a “scientific” definition, please show me the definition that is.

      And I’m pretty sure I’m using the word consistency the same way Godel did, as per the dictionary definition: “marked by agreement : compatible —usually used with with ”

      The point I’m making is that I wasn’t saying anything about “truth” – and neither was Godel. And the question is, are the Axioms as a system consistent within themselves – i.e. are they in agreement with one another, or are they contradictory. That’s the whole idea in the theorems, I believe.

      1. Awesome application of Godel’s Theorem to the Axioms, Marildi!

        I have never even thought of this, having learned of this theorem just this morning.

        How do you think that Godel’s Theorem applies to the Scientology Axioms?

        Are they consistent, inconsistent, or contradictory?

        And what does it mean within the context of Godel’s theorem?


        1. As I’ve said, I don’t think any of them contradict any of the others, i.e. the system is consistent within itself. And, as per Godel, since it is consistent it cannot therefore be complete as well.

          That’s what I mean when I say the Axioms align with or do not violate Godel’s theorems. Would you agree, or do you see any inconsistency in the Axioms?

          1. Marildi: And, as per Godel, since it is consistent it cannot therefore be complete as well.

            Chris: Ah, but it is truly complete. There is no situation for which you using Mr. Hubbard’s Technology to not have an answer.

        2. Here you go, Al, quotes from Wikipedia “simple English”:

          1. “The first theorem says that for a given (non-trivial) formal system, there will be statements that are true in that system, but that they cannot be proved to be true inside the system.”

          That theorem is the one I think applies to Axiom 1, which is a statement that “cannot be proved to be true inside the system”. Thus the Axioms as a system is incomplete.

          2. “The second theorem says that if a system can be proved to be consistent using its own logic, then there will be a theorem in the system that is contradictory.”

          This is the one that I’m thinking is true for the Axioms, i.e. that it is a system which is “consistent using its own logic” – although I don’t know of any “theorem in the system that is contradictory”. That’s a good question too.

          But basically, the above indicates to me that the Axioms are incomplete yet consistent, and that would meet Gödel’s idea that no system can be both complete and consistent.

  9. The 2nd definition of ‘axiom’, from several sources, runs along these lines:

    2: A statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.

    An ‘axiom’ is basically an assumption.

    Per Wikipedia: “As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning.[4] Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths. No explicit view regarding the absolute truth of axioms is ever taken in the context of modern mathematics, as such a thing is considered to be an irrelevant and impossible contradiction in terms.”


    Putting Marildi’s argument in proper perspective with Goedel, all Scientology axioms may be consistent, but they are not complete.

    Scientology axiom #1 is a theoretical conjecture only and it has no basis in fact. It is the traditional “God” postulate in a new garb. It is an attempt to make “God” look more scientific. But it cannot be sustained logically.

    From mindfulness perspective, one should start with what is obviously there. This has led me to the first chapter of my book as follows:

    CHAPTER 1: Objective and Subjective

    “The existence in us of psychic life, i.e., of sensations, perceptions, conceptions, reasoning, feeling, desires etc., and the existence of the world outside of us—from these two fundamental data immediately proceed our common and clearly understood division of everything that we know into subjective and objective.”

    ~ TERTIUM ORGANUM, ~ P.D. Ouspensky.


    Is reality truly that which is objective? Is reality falsely colored by what is subjective?

    Objectivity is generally defined as “the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject‘s individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations.”

    Subjectivity is generally defined as “the condition of being a subject and the subject’s perspective, experiences, feelings, beliefs, and desires.”

    A subject is an observer whereas an object is a thing observed. Objectivity means perceiving an object for what it is. Subjectivity means adding distortion or color to what is there.

    The ultimate definition of objectivity is given by Kant as “thing-in-itself,” This theoretical absolute in objectivity is beyond sense perception because even the very act of perceiving seems to shape our experience of things.

    We shall never know the object, which is there, in an absolute sense. Our perception will always be subjective to some degree.

    To objectively understand what is really there, we should observe things as they are without known assumptions, expectations, or speculations. In addition, we should always remain alert for unknown subjectivity, and make corrections for that subjectivity wherever it is found.

    This is mindfulness.

    LINK: Reality & Mindfulness


    1. VInaire: Putting Marildi’s argument in proper perspective with Goedel, all Scientology axioms may be consistent, but they are not complete.

      Chris: The beauty as I see it is that on the one hand Scientology, Hubbard promoted Scientology in KSW as more complete than consistent. In Hubbard’s KSW words, Scientology is not perfect but workable. In this context, workable means consistent. So in the self-defined bubble of Scientology it defines itself as consistent and goes about defining why it is consistent. To an outsider, these rants and axioms look like utter wandering nonsense. But to an insider cooperating with the fabrication of the Scientology organization, Hubbard’s words provide the mantra which drives away inconsistencies.

      Then on the other hand, Hubbard also defines Scientology to be complete, or as complete as it is ever going to be. Together with Alanzo’s voluminous dissertations on the inconsistencies and outright lies and criminal intent of Hubbard, I’ve had my eyes opened to more possibilities than only the words of Hubbard.

      So the beauty as I see it is to set up such a paradox that can only be rivaled by the internal workings of a star whose gravity crushes its material while its nuclear fission seeks to explode it apart. This is the way I see true believers on the inside of the bubble of Scientology. This balance of mental compression and explosive energy can only maintain for a short while. For the person who stays, the compression (gravity) wins out crushing the personality and morphing it into heavier elements. For the person who leaves, the inconsistencies (fission) become so great that the individual supernovas scattering their energy out into the universe.

      1. Hubbard Scientology is not consistent by any means. Here is my summary assessment of Scientology.

        1. Scientology consists of much ground breaking work by Hubbard.

        2. Scientology introduces a whole new plateau to addressing the problems of the mind.

        3. The work on this breakthrough is, however, far from complete.

        4. The success from the application of Scientology is far from consistent.

        5. Any lack of success gets blamed on the practitioner of Scientology.

        6. Unmanageable difficulties seem to exist in the application of Scientology.

        7. Correction lists have become a part of “Standard Scientology.”

        8. A closer look at Scientology shows a lack of application of the principle of poka-yoke.

        9. ‘Looking’ is the key to successes in Scientology auditing.

        10. Scientology does not seem to put emphasis on ‘Looking’.

        11. Scientology takes up ‘Looking’ on TR0 exercises and Obnosis, but it fails to treat ‘Looking’ systematically, and fails to highlight its importance in auditing.

        12. The principles of Looking were first elucidated by Buddha 2600 years ago.

        13. ‘Looking’ when applied as mindfulness, seems to provide poka-yoke to Scientology processes.

        14. The principles of Looking are presented on this blog under the heading: KHTK Looking.

        15. KHTK incorporates Buddha’s original exercises.

        16. KHTK is applying mindfulness to various processes in Scientology. See Running Scientology Grade 0 with Mindfulness (Part 1)



        1. Vinaire: Hubbard Scientology is not consistent by any means.

          Chris: I want to be clear (no pun), when I say Scientology is consistent within the metes and bounds of Scientology, I truly only mean that it defines itself as consistent and therefore people within that bubble can find reasons why it is consistent to support their equilibrium within that bubble. The Scientology personality is a weighted center of considerations, and as I said on the other comment, this equilibrium is extremely unstable with gigantic mental forces fighting one another. Ultimately, the Scientology personality unravels as do all personalities, IMO.

        2. The following is an obvious inconsistency.

          7. Correction lists have become a part of “Standard Scientology.”

          However, it would not appear as an inconsistency to a person looking through the Scientology filter.


  11. I shall participate in further discussion on Geir’s blog only when the following policy is followed by all participants including Geir himself: I have no problem following this policy on my own blog. The tone of a blog is set by its owner.

    Discussions and what needs to be avoided

    The purpose of a discussion is to learn by exchanging viewpoints. One uses experience and experimentation to obtain data and then brings it to the table to be discussed.

    The participants in a discussion focus on the subject and not on each other. A discussion is not a debate where one is in a contest to win argument against others. There is no need for sophistry. In a discussion there are no opponents. All participants are on the same side. On the other side may just be ignorance. In a discussion each participant’s viewpoint is bound to change and evolve as he/she learns from the data pooled together by all.

    Thus, a discussion is a cooperative effort. There is no reason to censor any data in a discussion. The data simply needs to be examined in detail.

    However, there are distractions that can keep one from discussing a subject. Such distractions may be introduced in the following ways:

    1. Defending a viewpoint instead of looking at the inconsistency generated by it.

    Some people literally view God as a person who has created this universe. They completely ignore the inconsistency that a person has a form that occupies space, and that form and space are also things that are created as part of the universe. So, God cannot be a person and the creator of the universe. But such people, who believe that god is literally a person, would not like to discuss this inconsistency. They would simply insist that their viewpoint is right. They would reject others who think differently.

    2. Focusing on participants instead of tackling the data being presented in a discussion.

    This is what happens in the situation described in (1) above. But otherwise too, any focus on participants rather than on the subject of discussion causes much distraction. Such an action may involve commenting on the perceived behavior and characteristics of another participant; and/or becoming accusative, emotional and combative.

    3. Not providing clarification of one’s viewpoint in a disagreement, instead calling the other person wrong.

    In any disagreement effort should be made to clarify one’s viewpoint as much as possible. Not doing so, and simply saying that the other person is wrong, does not resolve anything. It only produces distraction.

    4. Not caring in a disagreement if the other person clarifies his/her viewpoint or not.

    A person can be so convinced about being right that he would not even ask the other person for further clarification in a disagreement. He would not even listen if the other person offers any clarification. He simply would not engage in a discussion. This kind of behavior also produces much distraction.

    5. Complaining that the other person is not answering their question.

    A person cannot see the answer even when it is given to him if he is already committed to another answer. An indication of that is this complaint that he is not getting an answer. The solution is for the person to honestly look at the answer that he has already committed himself to. Why is that answer adequate? Why is the other person’s stance being looked upon as “no-answer”?

    If he then finds an inconsistency, then he should bring it to the table for discussion. But as long as that person is justifying an inconsistency with an existing answer, no discussion is possible.


    Thus, distractions to discussion come from a person who does not want to engage in the discussion in the first place. He could be treating the discussion as a debate, or he may simply want to be right. He has got his mind made up and closed. The above behaviors are indicative of that.


    1. All discussions must be carried out in a respectful environment with no accusations and evaluations of participants employed.


      1. Look at your own posts on my Top 5 list of gains in Scientology and tell me if you think you are respectful.

        Vinaire, you are full of shit.

        1. I’m sorry, Vinaire. I have been speaking to both of you on the Internet for a long time. Geir’s record of polite discourse is not spotless, but it is very strong.

          Geir’s “karma” is a LOT cleaner than yours when it comes to polite and respectful discourse on the Internet.

          My “karma” is probably worse than both of yours combined – but I’m just sayin here….


            1. It always appears polite when somebody agrees with you even when you are wrong. But that does not lead you to truth.

            2. Maybe not, but it might lead to fruitful associations and opinions. But if looking leads to truth, then this situation is something good for each of us to look at. It’s just blogging, no reason to get too serious about it.

          1. Al: My “karma” is probably worse than both of yours combined – but I’m just sayin here….

            SP: lol that reminds me of an incident… 😛

          2. Alanzo: My “karma” is probably worse than both of yours combined – but I’m just sayin here….

            Chris: Not for me. Your repartee while robust is armed to the teeth with facts and well reasoned arguments. Maybe the best I’ve seen, I know I can’t touch it. That having been said, I now go into the valence of Alanzo, the winning valence. Goodby Chris, hello Alanzo — signed: Alanzo (I will be Alanzo from now on, so please refer to me that way . . . ah, feeling better already.)

    1. This is the blog with the least rules and moderation. That’s the way I like it. And that is all that matters.

    2. OK. I am not going to pull any punches here. Here is what I see as outpoint in your blog if you want to explore reality.

      Your blog allows the Scientology mindset of exploiting the weakness in the participant and not the weakness in the point being discussed. That is how Scientologists try to win their point. This is what both you and Marildi try to do.

      This is typical of how Hubbard behaved, and it seems to be built into Scientology.

      The following policy of discussions (as laid out above) cuts right through it.

      Discussions and what needs to be avoided

      This policy is deadly for the Scientology mindset.

      I apply this policy on my blog. I am proud to say that my blog is very productive in terms of new research. I have wonderful help from participants on my blog. Everyone is focused on research. There is no noise. And there is good camaraderie.

      I find too much noise on your blog. Maybe that’s what you want, but that is not my cup of tea.


      1. V: Your blog allows the Scientology mindset of exploiting the weakness in the participant and not the weakness in the point being discussed. That is how Scientologists try to win their point.

        S: Have you ever heard a politician talking? 😛

          1. OK, LRH was critical of what you described. What you described is used by Churchies and their likes when they point out your alleged O/Ws, MUs etc whenever you argue with them about something. It isn’t based on any LRH materials. It is a system widely used by people who try to avoid something being communicated –such as the politicians I mentioned before. There is also a TR in the ‘Success Through Communication Course’. That coaxes you to talk about irrelevant things to make the other forget what he wanted to ask you about. That’s more like Black SCN the way I see it, and a construct of the RTC. LRH prohibited such stuff with his ‘Drills Allowed’ PL.

            1. Oh swap ‘RTC’ for ‘COS’. As I don’t think there was any RTC when the drills were released.

            2. It’s cool when somebody doesn’t want to talk. It would be against the code of honor afterall, if he forced himself to talk. But to pretend to talk, while you (not you) talk trash, is dishonest.

            3. Its two hand clapping. There is trash talk on Geir’s on both sides and there is no check. The tone is set by the owner of the blog. If the owner does trash talk then there are no checks.

              The discussion policy is a nice check, It works beautifully on my blog and work gets done.


            4. I allow no back and forth accusations on my blog on the subject of exploring reality. And that includes myself. Discussion policy keeps noise totally away on my blog.

              Discussion Policy cannot be applied one-sidedly, and that is the problem on Geir’s Blog. I try to apply that policy to myself as much as I can on Geir’s blog, but when the accusations against me continue unabated then all bets are off.

              Mindfulness doesn’t mean you allow yourself to be bullied and railroaded. One sees the effort of the other person to bully for what it is, and then one take action against it.

              My action is to advise Geir that Discussion Policy be implemented on his blog, else the noise will continue and this blog will suffer.

              This blog has a lot of promise, that is why I come here now and then, but the noise here repels me.

              Implement the discussion policy on this blog for everyone, and I shall be the first one to follow it.


            5. Vinaire, your ranting here is awfully similar to that of Dio’s. Mindful it is not. Respectful it is not.

              Vinaire: I’ll make this very simple for you: Stop complaining or stop posting here.

      2. Feel free to leave at any time. I know you want to harvest readers here to come over to your blog. That is how you have used my blog in the past – as a marketing vehicle. That is what I expect from you in the future. You claim to be interested in research, yet you are the one here most prone to monologue and demagogic behavior, arrogance and condescending comments. You are the one that has behaved the rudest of all commenters here – bar perhaps Dio (except very few here takes him seriously). My advice to you, and I pull no punches here, is to start practicing mindfulness.

        1. Sorry Geir, I have nothing to market. Those who are interested in exploring already visit my blog.

          Like any Scientologist you just want a games condition. Well you have it. Enjoy.


        2. Geir, your problem is that you feel that I am exploiting your blog by putting links on it to my blog. That idea is a games condition that belongs only in your head.

          What’s wrong with pooling knowledge? Chris Thompson doesn’t have any such feeling when I put links to my blog on his blog. I don’t think that I am harming anybody’s blog by referencing posts from by blog.

          What am I doing to harm your blog. What are you trying to protect?

          The only conclusion I come up with is that you feel that I am stealing your thunder. And that is a plain play of ego.


            1. If Geir wants to put me on moderation for the reason of being snide, he should be consistent and put Marildi on moderation too. Haha!


            2. Vin & Dio, the dynamic duo.

              Marildi is in whole other category. – she is witty and good-willed. You are snide and… what’s that antonym to mindful again… somebody help me out.

  12. More important than forced politeness is the Discussion policy.

    You are more polite by not focusing on participants but on the point of discussion.


  13. Very uncool posting an incomplete xkcd cartoon and not even crediting the source. For the sake of preserving creativity on the Internet, and for giving Randall Munroe the credit he deserves:

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s