“Perhaps the greatest logician of all time, Kurt Gödel uncovered the existence of a world-wide conspiracy to make men less intelligent. For years Gödel had been very interested in the work of Gottfried Leibniz, whose characteristica universalis influenced Gödel’s use of symbolism in his famous incompleteness proofs, and went so far as to request copies of the voluminous Leibniz manuscripts to be brought to the United States during the second World War. Gödel initially claimed to have discovered evidence of a conspiracy suppressing Leibniz’s work—that Leibniz had in fact completed the famously unfinished (and unfinishable) universal language of thought, but had been prevented from publishing it. In conversation, Gödel suggested that the Viennese Academy of Science, officially inaugurated in the mid-19th century, had in fact been founded by Leibniz in secret some centuries before; its record books, which contained references to the complete characteristica universalis, had been systematically destroyed.”
Continued on this archived blog post: archive.li/xrRVZ Ominously, the original webpage has been removed, and the only tweet referencing it (by a Jay Dyer) seems to have been redirected after his tweet to a porn site.
On one occasion, Gödel called his friend Morgenstern, the economist, to the Firestone Library at Princeton, and showed him two piles of books: one stack of works published in Leibniz’s time, citing him, and another pile of the exact Leibniz editions which were being cited. He proceeded to demonstrate that in a suspicious number of cases, the cited passages do not exist; either the citations refer to a non-existent chapter, to a missing paragraph, or to a page on which the supposed text does not appear, as if the books had been altered after the citations were made. Gödel came to believe not only that this conspiracy against Leibniz still existed, but that it was currently preventing the public from understanding the significance of his own (Gödel’s) work (which, for the curious, proved that any complex formal system cannot be both consistent and complete: that there will always exists truths that are true, but unprovable in the system, and that one of these truths is the very consistency of that system. Gödel evidently understood this result as proving man’s ability to intuit mathematics in a Platonic sense, since no formal procedure can produce all truths).
It's all true, physics is fraudulent too. Miles Mathis is on the case.
Daniel Reyes
Gödel, in terror of the conspiracy, rarely published, and eventually wasted away after the death of his wife. Without her care, he starved himself to death in the late 70’s. The accepted explanation is that his death was a result of the over-zealous application of the principle of sufficient reason: that everything happens for a reason–the guiding principle of both philosophers and paranoiacs. Gödel’s writings on Leibniz (which surely document his investigation into the conspiracy) are housed today in the Firestone Library at Princeton (diglib.princeton.edu/ead/getEad?id=ark:/88435/v979v310g). They are written in an archaic 19th century German short-hand, with generous helpings of mathematical symbolism and Latin. For those interested in learning more, there is almost nothing available. All references to his conspiracy theory refer to the same handful of accounts in various memoirs of his contemporaries and no serious attempt has been made to evaluate his theory, let alone translate his writings on the subject.
Has he written about this topic before? Could you link me to the most relevant work Mathis has produced relating to academic suppression of universal language?
Also, for what it is worth, the universal language of Leibniz has been rediscovered and put forth in a more powerful form by the work of French mathematician Grothendieck, who died in 2014. It’s all about the Topos. So, good luck to those cock-suckers suppressing it this time.
Caleb Ramirez
>it was currently preventing the public from understanding the significance of his own (Gödel’s) work Surely no possibility of ulterior motivation here.
Carter Ortiz
Everyone should just learn Indonesian
Julian Ramirez
>For those interested in learning more, there is almost nothing available. Well then what is there to be done
It would be a convenient criticism to justify ignoring such a sour topic, but it’s pretty unfounded. This man was strikingly logical, in fact he only traded in mathematically proveable statements, being one of the world’s most prominent logicians and all. For added credibility, see pic related. Or perhaps look at his correspondence with Alan Turing. Hardly worth calling him egotistically self-important and then discarding his argument for suspicion.
I'm intrigued user. At first I was thinking this was pure bullshit but it sounds at least slightly interesting. What then, is the proposed reason for suppressing this work? Why make mankind dumber? And also, what do you propose we do?
Has anyone here studied Godel's incompleteness theorem?
Nathaniel Richardson
>This man was strikingly logical, in fact he only traded in mathematically proveable statements That obviously can't be the case, because if it were, he couldn't deal with the vast majority of reality.
I'm not saying he was some irrelevant petty shitter, but nobody's perfect, and a cursory examination of the topic shows that even today, most of Leibniz's writings simply haven't been published yet, because there's an absolute fuckload of them. The in depth exploration of Leibniz's characteristica universalis that Godel believed to have been suppressed could easily just not have been published yet.
Zachary Gutierrez
The idea that suppressing this would make mankind dumber is something OP should probably explain, since it doesn't really make any sense.
Cameron Cooper
>Grothendieck’s Topos
For a taste of Gödel’s philosophical views, one should read his unpublished remarks on the modern development of the foundations of mathematics in the light of philosophy (1961).
Gödel was undoubtedly based and redpilled by Leibniz, who was redpilled by Plato, who was redpilled by Socrates, who was redpilled by Pythagoras.
Gödel gave a mathematical description of god, critiqued the Turing Machine as forever inferior to a mathematician’s intuition (read: called Turing an NPC), and critiqued Einstein’s tensors as being likely incorrect by reductio absurdum because they lead to the possibility of time travel.
>doesn’t make any sense Knowledge is power. Modern computing allows us to use “information technology” to relate massive amounts of information to itself and new information. One example of this in practical use is a knowledge graph, or a large database like Wikipedia.
When you use these tools, you are using the English language to interface with a more rigorous language in computer code, which is better suited to deal with large quantities of information in a consistent fashion.
Leibniz cut he bullshit and wanted to make a language that humans could directly use, conveniently, to essentially perform the same sort of efficiency trick but on bodies of logic - like law or metaphysics. He seemed convinced this would be To the mind like the telescope lense was to the eye - obviously, this sort of tool could augment the faculty of human reason. Just like mathematics itself has.
He designed it to be symbolic, for what it’s worth.
>what do I’d suggest looking into Gödel’s philosophical writings, to piggy back On his attempt at restoring Leibniz’ lost work.
Also, I’ve been convinced recently by a friend that Grothendieck’s algebraic geometry can be used to rebuild the universal language.
There are tons of practical uses of being able to sort, categorize, and evaluate massive amounts of information so I don't know why you're bringing up a knowledge graph. I'd also disagree that computer code is a 'more rigorous' language - what do you mean? Rigorous in what context?
How do you know all this about Leibniz's intentions? Or are you reading between the lines and inferring based on limited information? I've read some of Godel, I may look into what you're talking about here, but you've got to give us more than this user.
If you want to have a serious discussion about this stuff I'm all for it, but if you're only intending to throw out a bunch of word salad to sound smart then forget it dude, nobody wants to waste their time on that.
Logan Flores
>When you use these tools, you are using the English language to interface with a more rigorous language in computer code, which is better suited to deal with large quantities of information in a consistent fashion. >Leibniz cut he bullshit and wanted to make a language that humans could directly use, conveniently, to essentially perform the same sort of efficiency trick but on bodies of logic If that's the case, then that's a retarded concept. Computers don't work anything like organic brains. The idea that an artificial language that differs significantly from natural languages could be more effective at communicating information than natural languages is absurd.
Caleb Cox
It’s not an artificial language, it’s mathematics, which very obviously has advantages to English in communicating information.
Rigor - more signal for less noise. Convey the entirety of Wikipedia to me in plaintext and I don’t have much use for it. Indexed and rendered searchable, through a more rigorous representation like html, css, sql, etc, it can be queried and shared easily.
Caleb Reed
>word salad >sound like trying to sound smart Read the links bro, it’s a blogpost and an animated YouTube video, it’s not intimidating and I’m not using self-aggrandizing language.
Leo Martinez
>advantages to English in communicating information
Does it though? Alright - communicate to me the concept of irony using only math. Or how about betrayal. Can you tell me what a sunrise feels like using only math?
Also, that's not what rigor means. In your example, those alternatives would be more effective at communicating information, not rigorous. I get what you're saying, but you didn't answer some of the original questions - why would there be a conspiracy to make mankind dumber?
And also where did you hear about all this stuff?
Isaiah Nelson
Missed the link, I'll check it out
Jonathan Perez
Ewww persian culture
Lincoln Davis
>It’s not an artificial language, it’s mathematics, It's clearly not mathematics. We already have mathematics, we don't need someone to reinvent it.
There’s no argument being made against forms of communication like memes, art, lit, or smearing poop on concrete. Whatever floats one’s boat is fine. In fact, it is so fine that there should be no qualms when a clever guy like Leibniz comes up with a new way using linkable pictures (kinda like those funky Egyptians’ hieroglyphs), and suggests it’s a good way to calculate truth and falsehood for some things.
Logic and art are both fine, I’m saying there was a new logic that seems to have been suppressed. Your comment is a non sequitur.
Lincoln Rivera
“To be able to ask a question clearly is two-thirds of the way to getting it answered.” ― John Ruskin
Wow great argument... what was calculus to those who only knew of addition? Assuming you even give a shit, please see this video for an explanation of how much of modern math is about as pozzed as modern pop culture:
Jack Brown
DEAR LORD straight to the rooftops with you
Mason Bell
Math is core to my field, you come off as a guy who doesn't completely understand what he's talking about. You can't use math to communicate virtually any non-mathematical concepts, beyond "I can do math", without using it as some sort of proxy for a normal language. Math by itself isn't a viable language. Plus, based on what I've read, I'm pretty sure that Leibniz's idea was not "use math as a language", given that it was supposed to be symbolic.
Gabriel Barnes
Say more, intriguing post.
John Diaz
I mean, logic would be where this doesn’t hold: >You can't use math to cimmunization non-math concepts
And no, I don’t know the stuff of these censored pages, but I’m completely comfortable asking, speculating and sharing. As someone posturing themselves as a qualified expert on the topic, you should weigh in on the subject matter! Investigating my own expertise on it won’t prove fruitful, or relevant.
Lucas Miller
Interesting. I've always felt there is a natural magical language that has been lost. It's possibly the Hyperborean one. Maybe it has to do with runes?
bump for the real Illuminati, not the shit you've been told to fear
Jaxon James
Check out Eric Dollards 'A Common Language For Electrical Engineering' he greatly simplfies the way in which one can engineer electrical devices simply by fixing all the subversion and destroying all the mind viruses (like that 3d means xyz when in reality xyz are just coordinates within the single dimension of space). Im a computer a programmer, the english/french/japanese etc languages are human programming languages. I am very much interested in a universal language. I would recommend you dont respond to anyone that is in any way negative towards you or the board, they are without question shills or bots or jews.
Jace James
Also I didnt realize jay was talking about stuff like this, I thought he was just a esoteric hollywood and theology type guy.
Ian Perez
I think that’s a cool idea. Kind of like hegel’s system.
Nice I will ty. Also, I think Stephen Wolfram is probably the closest in vibe with this project right now - he keeps drawing parallels to Leibniz’ universal characteristic with his computing platform. And like, maybe, but it just seems to be lacking something. I need to read more about it desu, but it does not seem grounded in category theory and groethendieck’s topos, which I have an intuition is necessary to fully do this.
Do NOT click the link outside a VM though. It redirects to a flash-laden porno site of sorts. Made zero sense to me.
Julian Perez
Yes it does, the geometry of logic itself can be used to model non-mathematical objects like computer code, logical proofs, and legal writing. Read what I send more closely. Your response to the other poster makes me FEEL like you’re just a puckered asshole.
Colton Sanchez
The greatest among us recieve their genius from dreams and revelation. It's intuition. It's always been that way. Especially Aryans.
You sound like a Jew.
Austin Miller
>the suppression of universal language Universal language is English. Look at this site. Look at all the different flags, all shitposting in English. Even all those moonspeak Asians with languages made of pictures have some remedial English. English is made of stolen bits and pieces from every other language and everyone on the planet understands it on some level because it's necessary to for trade purposes. If you don't speak English you are a third world insect worth nothing to anyone.
Juan Lee
Well said. Henri Poincaré would agree:
“We know that this feeling, this intuition of mathematical order, that makes us divine hidden harmonies and relations, can not be possessed by every one. Some will not have either this delicate feeling so difficult to define, or a strength of memory and attention beyond the ordinary, and then they will be absolutely incapable of understanding higher mathematics. Such are the majority. Others will have this feeling only in a slight degree, but they will be gifted with an uncommon memory and a great power of attention. They will learn by heart the details one after another; they can understand mathematics and sometimes make applications, but they cannot create. Others, finally, will possess in a less or greater degree the special intuition referred to, and then not only can they understand mathematics even if their memory is nothing extraordinary, but they may become creators and try to invent with more or less success according as this intuition is more or less developed in them.”
Miles mathis is a full blown messiah-complex schizo. He thinks he's proven pi = 4.
No, I'm not making this up.
Hunter Russell
Go hang yourself from the world tree for 9 days and 9 nights and let us know
Lincoln Wilson
Philip K Dick, after reading Julian Jaynes’ theory on the Bicameral Mind, began experimenting with megadoses of B bitamins in order to attempt to strengthen the connectivity between brain hemispheres. He seemed to believe that there was something dormant in the right hemisphere intrinsically connected with language and the subconscious.
He experienced what was later diagnosed as a psychotic break, while on the b vitamin regimen. A pink light had beamed about 10,000 years of knowledge into his head over the course of 5-8 hours. He felt this experience to be real, and felt as if he had communed with a deity called Sophia. Some of the knowledge he received but could not have known otherwise, oddly tested as true. For more, read VALIS or the Exegesis of Philip K Dick.
What I believe he described was the first hand experience of radical anamnesis. Plato taught that learning was better described as memory, because we are in a perpetual state of amnesia, but when we remember that which had been forgotten, it seems like we have learned. If one could remember all knowledge, one would be fully occupying the mind of a deity defined by being all truth, connected. This is the god of Godel, Leibniz, Plotinus, and Plato.
I believe that language is a tool for consciousness growth and direction. An innovation in language yields an innovation in consciousness as well.
I think we're going to figure out some way to reach a biological singularity through computer aided training
Aiden Sanchez
You don't know much about mathematics. Mathematics is not some means of calculation with numbers or operations one does on some set, abstract or concrete: mathematics is a formal system of communicating truth and usually, having a way to test the truth of statements. Just because math may be "central" to your engineering or physics research doesn't mean you know anything about the very tool you're using. Just because a stock broker uses a computer to trade stocks doesn't mean he knows anything about the architecture of the system he's using.
Andrew Adams
That link did demonstrate what you’re trying to refute. Take the time to read just the first page and you’d recognize that.
Oliver Lee
Why is there a diversity of languages rather than one. What is the origins of the diversity of language?
Ryan Stewart
Is OP's pic some sort of soft disclosure? Are scientists trying to learn how to speak ayy lmao?
Josiah Powell
If a lion spoke to you would you be able to understand?
Cameron Howard
The lion "noises" are context dependent, you need to see his body language and situation to know what he means... This is the cost of having just 3 words (roooarrr, grrr and pufff).
