| HN Mirror

I was afraid somebody would ask that question. I don't have a simple answer to that question. As best as I can explain it, GEB provides an intentional stance that makes it much easier to exist in a chaotic world that we know little about.

The lynchpin around which that stance revolves is Goedel's proof that classical reasoning systems are necessarily incomplete. In short, that there are true things we can never prove to be true, and false things that we can never prove to be false, and an entire category of statements that are neither true nor false.

Coming to terms with the provable fact that knowledge is incomplete is enormously liberating. Once you do, the consequences spiral outward.

Examples, some of which GEB deals with explicitly, some of which falls out relatively easily:

- We can't know everything.

- Sometimes "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.

- Sometimes "the premise upon which your question is based is flawed" is a perfectly valid answer.

- All knowledge about objective reality requires (at a minimum) use of some form of Bayesian/probabilistic reasoning.

- Finite rules-based ethical and legal systems are (almost definitely) incomplete. Deeply distrust anyone who attempts to tell you otherwise.

At the broader end of the domino chain of consequences, there are things like this:

- There are no rules for what is beautiful.

- Falling in love is a dreadful way to select a mate. But do it anyway. You won't regret it.

- Hard materialism is not incompatible with experiencing awe and wonder.

- We live in a chaotic universe that doesn't care about us at all. There are ways to deal with that.

- Embrace chaos.

- That consciousness is an emergent property of a complex universe is a perfectly valid alternate explanation to "Gods did it".

- Having a materialistic worldview does not preclude having a rich inner life.