- more re: the above -
From 'Mathematical Infinity and Human Destiny' by Paul Budnik, a consultant in Silicon Valley. He has a Ph.D. in computer science from the University of Illinois
"It may seem that any attempt to objectify spirituality can only lead to its destruction. This is true of attempts to contain it intellectually. It cannot be contained because it points to an unbounding range of possibilities.
Comment: However, see his final paragraph.
In the worlds of science and mathematics, there is nearly universal agreement about a vast body of knowledge that has enormous practical value. Of course, there is no agreement about how to extend mathematics and science, but there is agreement on the process that must be followed to bring new ideas into the widely accepted core."
Comment: The value of science as a product of the scientific method.
"In contrast, religion and spirituality is filled with arbitrary dogma and often violent disagreement. The power [that] technology is giving the human race makes this increasingly dangerous, and ultimately unacceptable. If it continues, the human species will almost certainly destroy itself."
Comment: These points have been thoroughly discussed in SAGG, where I think they are generally considered true.
"It is possible to develop a core spirituality that has the objectivity of science."
Comment: I agree with that assertion.
"Like mathematics, an objective spirituality must be open-ended, with the potential for unbounded creativity. That is where most approaches to spirituality, in our intellectually dominated age, run into trouble. Intellect is a very powerful, but very limited tool. It likes to constrain things in a universe that it can understand. That is one reason most mathematicians, including Godel himself, resisted creative implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem."
Comment:
From Wiki: 'Godel's second incompleteness theorem shows that it is not possible for any proof that Peano Arithmetic is consistent to be carried out within Peano arithmetic itself. This theorem shows that if the only acceptable proof procedures are those that can be formalized within arithmetic then Hilbert's call for a consistency proof cannot be answered. However, as Nagle and Newman (1958:96-97) explain, there is still room for a proof that cannot be formalized in arithmetic: "This imposing result of Godel's analysis should not be misunderstood: it does not exclude a meta-mathematical proof of the consistency of arithmetic. What it excludes is a proof of consistency that can be mirrored by the formal deductions of arithmetic. Meta-mathematical proofs of the consistency of arithmetic have, in fact, been constructed, notably by Gerhard Gentzen, a member of the Hilbert school, in 1936, and by others since then. ... But these meta-mathematical proofs cannot be represented within the arithmetical calculus'
In other words, Paul Budnik has inferred that the validity of the scientific understanding of total reality cannot be proven from within its own framework.
"The universe is the creative evolution of consciousness. This is beyond understanding and imagination - but we can understand the structure of this process."
Comment: Whatever else can be said of the universe, it cannot be denied that consciousness has emerged within it, and that consciousness has evolved. It is, for now at least, a mystery - but we can understand the physical processes with which it is associated.
"We can understand how to feed it, and what will kill it. We can begin to convert some spiritual intuitions into intellectual understanding. Doing so is essential [in order] to focus our spiritual motivations into a framework that will allow the continued evolution of consciousness - not to mention the survival of humanity."
Comment: There is a rationale that allows intellectual insight into spiritual intuitions. It's the same process that allows the development of ethical awareness.
