X-Message-Number: 4193
Subject: Ettinger vs. Godel
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 00:31:40 -0500
From: Will Dye <>

Mr. Ettinger wrote (emphasis added):
		
> Following is part of a draft of a chapter in one of my books
> in progress [...] Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems are in        
> essence just as stupid  as this. [...]  I say the
                  ^^^^^^
> incompleteness theorems are phony.
                              ^^^^^

John K. Clark responded to Mr. Ettinger:		

> I really hope you don't take this the wrong way but with the
> deepest respect I beg you, don't include this chapter in your
> new book. For some reason many respected scientists think that
> cryonics advocates are loony and probably members of the Flat
> Earth Society too, I guarantee you, calling the work of the
> greatest logician in two thousand years "stupid" and "phony"
> will not improve that perception. If you feel you absolutely
> positively must publish this anti intellectual chapter, please,
> please, PLEASE do it in a separate book that doesn't mention
> Cryonics. You might want to think about using a pseudonym as
> well, I don't think anybody on this list wants to see the father
> of Cryonics publicly humiliated and held up to scorn in the
> scientific community.
		    
I want to echo Mr. Clark.  Please, Mr. Ettinger, do not take on 
Godel and support cryonics in the same book.  Incompleteness, like
religion, stands in an easily-defended bunker:

1) The issues involved are difficult to express with precision and 
are often counterintuitive.

2) It has been around for a long time, and is in long-standing daily 
use by many people for many purposes.

3) It enjoys great popularity despite many serious attempts to 
attack it.  

Therefore, even a cogent mathematical proof attacking incompleteness 
will not be quickly or easily accepted.  No matter how well you fight, 
you cannot win this battle quickly.  You have little chance of having 
your arguments completely read, much less analyzed.

I don't know of a single professional mathematician who disbelieves 
Godel's theorem, and that includes cryptographic experts who work 
professionally with combinatorics and USE incompleteness and related
concepts in their profession of attacking and/or producing 
cryptosystems.  Your ideas on this subject will not be taken 
seriously in many quarters, and will be angrily dismissed in many 
more.  Further, you might be wrong.  

Note that I am not saying here which side is correct.  I am merely 
saying that an attack on Godel, especially one that states or 
even implies that his theorem is "stupid" and "phony", will be met 
with a maelstorm of criticism.  Even if the battle is eventually 
won, in the meantime the critics of cryonics will be given ammunition 
for the "just a bunch of loonies" portrayal we currently endure.

By all means attack & defend ideas, but please, please, do not 
implicitly attach the idea of cryonics to the idea that Godel is 
wrong.  

I hope that this is not construed as any sort of ill intent.  I 
assure you that I have great respect for you and your ideas, 
and I wish you the very best in all that you do.

--

Hmm.  I was going to send this directly to Mr. Ettinger, but it's 
occurred to me that everything I've said above about cryonics and 
Godel echoes what I think of cryonics and religion.  In short, don't 
pick a fight with religion unless you absolutely have to, because 
you will almost certainly lose.  When discussing cryonics, do not 
link cryonics and anti-religosity, even if they are intimately linked 
in your own mind.  It is unnecessary, and horrifyingly counterproductive.  

You may respond "but religion is wrong, and our opposition often 
cites religion", but the fact remains that this is a fight that 
cannot be quickly or easily won.  Linking cryonics into _any_ fight
will expend precious resources.  Don't do it unless you have no other 
options at all.

--Will

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4193