All Episodes
July 24, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
05:03
Is Logic Complete or Incomplete?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, I'm particularly interested in the truths which cannot be subject to such qualifications of being limited by time in that way.
Okay, so I'm trying to give you I'm trying to I'm asking for examples of how Gödel's incompleteness theorem shows up in because philosophy should be actionable and it should be actionable by anybody with an IQ of whatever, some minimum, so that they're not completely intellectually handicapped, right?
So my concern is that if you start throwing around Gödel's incompleteness theorem or other things, what you're saying to people is, well, logic's limited, therefore you don't have to be logical.
And so that's what I'm asking for is an example in life where logic is incomplete and it matters in the choices you're making practically and morally in your daily life.
Sure.
So practically if people want to know that they have some basis for backing up the choices that they make, then they may not be satisfied if people tell them that whether or
not the reason they well, people don't, sorry, people don't go about doing this.
So I do like your actionable philosophy that it has to be actionable because otherwise it is we're arguing about whether Klingons have kidneys on the left or the right side.
It's all just made up, right?
It is very difficult just like falsifying a claim and stuff like this.
So where I would like, so yeah, okay.
If you can say that there are, well, I guess, I don't know, does proving God fall in that category of being beneficial to your life?
I suppose if it is somebody who's judging you and you're going to go to hell, it would be.
But yes, I suppose then if people do want to have some idea of if they of meaning,
I suppose I would say then, yeah, I would say that if you don't have a understanding of that there exists things outside of your own understanding, you won't really be able to communicate with other people in a reasonable way if you just think that truth is not an objective quantity which
you can attain or approximate in that certain, you know, so I guess it's a moral argument at that point.
It's just it's a difficult thing to come up with a moral system if you do not have a way of telling whether or not something is a contradiction in that moral system.
So yeah, I mean, we do have to have that way.
And I've got a whole book on ethics called Universally Preferable Behavior, a Rational Proof of Secular Ethics.
You can also find a shorter version of the thesis at essentialphilosophy.com.
So I hope that people will check that out and get that.
But yeah, if you can't identify universal, absolute contradictions and logic, then you can't have philosophy.
You can't have engineering.
You can't have math.
You can't have science.
You can't have the modern world.
Because all of that relies upon universal, absolute, non-contradictory properties of matter and energy.
So I love the thought that you're putting into this.
I think it's great.
And I really appreciate the conversation.
Is there anything that you wanted to mention?
Because I think we got a bunch of people.
Absolutely.
Sorry for not being able to articulate it.
No, listen, brother.
Great job.
I love these topics.
I'm thrilled to don't ever apologize.
Ever, ever apologize for working in the realm of philosophy and trying to understand these very challenging and difficult issues.
So I'm thrilled that you had the conversation.
You're welcome back anytime.
And never be embarrassed about.
I flailed around in philosophy for decades.
I'm sure I'll still flail around more.
It is not a process or a discipline that is ever done.
And everyone who's speaking with honor, which you certainly are, and curiosity and reasonable exploration, nobody has anything to apologize for.
Please don't feel bad.
You did a great job, and I really do appreciate the conversation.
Talk to you again.
Thank you.
Export Selection