Sometimes unpalatable words, always tangible ideas, relentlessly accurate, reluctantly writing papers – that is how I perceive Goedel. Let me present You with some of his ideas.
“The illusion of the passage of time arises from the confusing of the given with the real. Passage of time arises because we think of occupying different realities. In fact, we occupy only different givens. There is only one reality. (170–1)”; Goedel, K. (in the sickness, before death)
Me: How could I explain getting old?
“The brain is a computing machine connected with a spirit.”
Me: Why would The Universe choose to make it that way? What is the reasoning behind it?
“Consciousness is connected with one unity. A machine is composed of parts”
“Concepts have an objective existence.”
“The world is rational.” “Materialism is false.”
Finally, something about consciousness (and logic, and Goedel, and Einstein). Imagine a person of whom you can predict all the actions. You write it down in a Book of God. If he knows about the BoG, he opens it and acts as to negate the idea behind the book, proving BoG incorrect. Hence, he won’t learn about the book. The last sentence in the idea that Goedel claimed (this has its roots in what Goedel used to call ‘objective mathematics’).
What if, however, he knows about the book? Then, no prediction of future is possible, hence no “end of the world” predictions remain trustworthy. If truly one cannot learn about the specific knowledge when not ready, how is readiness defined?
Why would capable of writing the BoG close the book so that others can’t improve their actions? Why do religions leave us the capability to improve in so-called time, claiming its finiteness and judgement time? Neumann once complained about the scene for the drama being too vast, whereas I’d complain about the book-hiding facilities. Claiming inability to take advantage of knowledge at a time makes residuums more appealing an idea, still, incoherent when it comes to reasoning. Do You know the reasoning?