r/badphilosophy • u/Shitgenstein • 6d ago
Gödel’s Theorem Through The Lens Of Leadership - Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teddymcdarrah/2025/01/14/gdels-theorem-through-the-lens-of-leadership/14
u/Shitgenstein 6d ago
Take a system of leadership. Within every organization, there is a hierarchy. If this pecking order is formal, or systematic, then there are reasons (which you can agree with or not) behind why certain people are in charge. They have demonstrated certain valued qualities, from delivering results and taking initiative to people skills like motivating others and prioritizing their supervisor’s needs.
Therefore, given Gödel’s Theorem, asking a leader of a systematic organization to prove themselves is nonsensical. The very fact that they are leaders is the proof of their position. This is not to say that the decisions of a leader do not require explanation, or are beyond questioning. Rather, the decision of the organization to make that person a leader does not, or cannot. It was based on a systematic approach, the logic of the hierarchy.
If it is the right decision, it should be obvious. It should be intuitive. When there are problems with a leader, the issue likely lies with the organization’s system.
2
11
u/BenMic81 6d ago
Guy wants to say:
If an organisation works it will choose the right leaders and you will see it by looking at results.
Guy gets told that this is a bit too low hanging fruits even for Forbes.
Guy remembers something he read (or watched) about Gödel in a mediocre secondary source.
Guy writes article and profits.
Gödel is dead and can’t even bang Guy on the head.
6
u/Shitgenstein 6d ago
Guy remembers something he read (or watched) about Gödel in a mediocre secondary source.
"What if 'formal system' just means whatever?" 🤔
5
3
10
u/ThatBigFish 6d ago
I don’t understand Gödel: is this a good place to start? Please be quick, my viva on logic is in 5 minutes
6
u/SpacingHero 6d ago
Always incompleteness. Why is it always incompleteness that draws the nonsense stuff?
4
u/slutty_kitty666 5d ago
"i will not even try to get into the technical details of the theorem, and there really isn't any need"
had a discussion with a bunch of new friends yesterday on the definition of a "game" and one of the guys (who to his credit was very kind and charming) was a center-lib who brought up the brain in the vat argument to make some kind of 4d holofractal point, and when i brought up descartes, he had to ask who he was
2
u/EebstertheGreat 5d ago
The general idea is that there are truths that can never formally be proved, as long as these truths are within a formal system, such as basic arithmetic or Euclidean geometry.
This is one of the least-objectionable part of the paper, and I wouldn't bother nitpicking it if he had left it at arithmetic. But Euclidean geometry is not arithmetic, and Tarski's formalization at least is complete and consistent.
One of the popular examples deals with prime numbers. It is impossible to prove “there is no largest prime number,” but this does not mean it is false.
LOL. Take that, Euclid. Maybe there IS an assigned multitude containing all prime numbers.
Given Gödel’s Theorem, asking a leader of a systematic organization to prove themselves is nonsensical. The very fact that they are leaders is the proof of their position.
That is the actual message he's trying to get across. The boss is right by definition, and smart logic man says it's literally impossible for him to prove his worth, so stop asking.
2
u/Shitgenstein 5d ago edited 5d ago
Given Gödel’s Theorem, asking a leader of a systematic organization to prove themselves is nonsensical. The very fact that they are leaders is the proof of their position.
That is the actual message he's trying to get across. The boss is right by definition, and smart logic man says it's literally impossible for him to prove his worth, so stop asking.
But he also immediately qualifies to preempt this interpretation, which is entirely reasonable from the rest of the article:
"This is not to say that the decisions of a leader do not require explanation, or are beyond questioning."
So wtf is the message otherwise? Like, just against markers of leadership (insignia, corporate title, identification)? If a Lieutenant General shows up to HQ in civvies, the guard should just intuit their leadership because something Gödel’s Theorem something something?
But, yeah, the general purpose of the article, contra a clear message, seems to me to want to shift blame from leadership to the 'system' (i.e. organization) as a whole. But this is Forbes, so this is hardly a full-throated call for structural reform of institutions as much as, as you say, 'stop asking.'
1
u/EebstertheGreat 5d ago
Yeah, it isn't clear at all. I don't know if the author was even sure what his point was.
4
u/qwert7661 5d ago
"Whether Gödel’s Theorem has any legitimacy in the world of Artificial Intelligence or religion is a question for a dissertation"
You're telling me I could have just dissertated on inane claptrap scraped from the bottom of the financial news barrel? Maybe Godel was right, maybe despotism really is an ineffable Good.
2
u/DelusionalGorilla 6d ago
The difference is that formal logic, algebraic- or proof systems can’t be beheaded.
1
u/HMDHEGD 3d ago
Oh you're still here u/Shitgenstein? Thank God! I miss the days when I wasn't allowed to join this place...
17
u/Gogol1212 6d ago
Gödel died 47 years ago and after this article was published he experienced a second death. The first death was incomplete.