Gödel's ontological proof, the lulz of

The item of interest is Anselmo d'Aostaⁱ's comedic contribution. Properly expressedⁱⁱ it goes like this :

Let "god" be defined as "that for which no greater can be conceived". This god as defined exists in representation. If that god exists representation, it could be represented as greater by its actual existing, in reality. Therefore, such a god of representation must exist in reality.

To delve into the self-obvious ridiculousness of it, for the slow :

Let "imaginary girlfriend" be defined as "forty young maidens and eager cocksuckers desperate for my own penis and it alone, restraining the modest gaze of their wide and lovely eyes, like pearls, companions of equal age, splendid, voluptuous, non-menstruating nor urinating nor defecating and child-free (or else being able to bring to term within an hour), with bodies not affected by pregnancy or breast-feeding, about 60 cubits (ie 27.5 m) tall and 7 cubits (ie, 3.2 m) wide, transparent to the marrow of their bones, eternally young and hairless except the eyebrows and the head plus pure, beautiful and much more besides and for which no greater can be conceived". This imaginary girlfriend as defined exists in representationⁱⁱⁱ. If that imaginary girlfriend exists representation, it could be represented as greater by its actual existing, in reality. Therefore, such an imaginary girlfriend of representation must exist in reality!

Isn't the wonder of overloading concepts of logic with fancies of the thirsty spirit something to behold! Make sure you call all your procedures think(); and void reason void etcetera to build that truly artificial intelligence soon!

Moving on :

Let "most desirable outcome" be defined as "that outcome for which no greater can be conceived". This most desirable outcome as defined exists in representation. If that most desirable outcome exists representation, it could be represented as greater by its actual existing, in reality. Therefore, such a most desirable outcome of representation must exist in reality.

Here's the thing: just because it can be represented a certain way doesn't make it so! The "most desirable outcome" is intrinsically ambiguous, in that it can only stay "most desirable" for as long as it doesn't actually exist! Once it exists, it is no longer an outcome at all! It is a fucking income, now. That it's represented as greater by existing doesn't mean its existing counterpart will actually be greater, or in Wise Mr. Doolittle's own words,

The Lord above gave man an arm of iron so he could do his job and never shirk. The Lord gave man an arm of iron-but with a little bit of luck, with a little bit of luck, someone else'll do the blinkin' work!

Oh, you can walk the straight and narrow; but with a little bit of luck you'll run amuck! The gentle sex was made for man to marry, to share his nest and see his food is cooked. The gentle sex was made for man to marry-but with a little bit of luck, with a little bit of luck, you can have it all and not get hooked.

They're always throwin' goodness at you; but with a little bit of luck a man can duck! Oh, it's a crime for man to go philandrin and fill his wife's poor heart with grief and doubt. Oh, it's a crime for man to go philanderin'-but with a little bit of luck, with a little bit of luck, you can see the bloodhound don't find out!

Common enough experience, this "greatest in representation ain't even close to greatest anymore, for having been meanwhile incarnate". Happens all the time. There's even a metafictive trope for it, "You fixed it -- now it sucks!" Happens. All. The. Time.

Needless to say, the humourless, clueless gang can never ever quit, no matter what ; so a thousand years later the above got a fancy update, in something called modal logic, courtesy of one Kurt Gödel^iv. It's a formal proof of some poofery that, if accepted, also collapses modal logic, such that every statement that is true is necessarily true, or in other words the sets of necessary, of contingent, and of possible truths all coincide. Check out who reinvented the fabulous Pangloss of great learning!

Just as needless to say... actually, first, here's the horror. Tell me where's Anselmo d'Aosta buried in there?

See where it says Ax[iom] 4, sorta two-thirds^v in ? "A property being positive in one world implies that property [being representable] and being positive in every possible world", or in other words "no such thing as worlds may exist". Which is ultimately the problem with these humorous fucks : captive inside their own skull, they keep engineering about the fundamental problem of beings an engineering : nothing outside my skull can be!!!

Good luck and all that. Meanwhile I'll be over here with the best possible hussies in the best possible world, which doesn't include you.

1. If you're from the Holy Roman Empire (ie Germany, Italy and the Central European crumbs). Also Anselm of Canterbury if you're from Rule Britannia, or else Anselm of Bec if you're from Tunisia, Algeria or their northern dependencies. Guy had something for everybody! [↩]
2. Something the maniac in question never did manage, for some reason. Isn't it a wonder how the supposedly timeless productions of any of the (consistent! substantial!) herd of supposedly divinely inspired wisedorks from ages past rot like flesh in the Sun ? Frankly I'd have expected "divine truths" tarnish better than this. If bronze can stay itself since the Greeks, why exactly does "the reviled revealed word" look like pig iron in seawater ? It's only been a millennium, what the hell. [↩]
3. Since it was defined it was also represented, this is a necessary existence. [↩]
4. Mentioned before around these parts, that time for his genuine contributions. Fellow's exactly a sort of Newton, both physicist and alchemist, except more eagerly the latter and somewhat reluctantly the former, to get himself out of the jams his "could be represented as greater" proclivities regularly got him into. [↩]
5. Ask my slaves to tell you the story of "two thirds in" sometime, who knows, maybe they do. [↩]