Kurt Gödel Scene - Oppenheimer (2023) [480p] 

Einstein's line is haunting though, Godel died of extreme malnutrition after his wife was hospitalized and he refused to eat any food not prepared by her. A brilliant, deeply troubled man.

@@trevorbradley3737 It sounds like some kind of OCD -- another one of those illnesses that sometimes affects brilliant people.

@@paryanindoeur Gödel's brother was a medical doctor, and according to him, Kurt had "a severe nervous crisis" after the murder of politician Dollfuss and close friend & philosopher Moris Schlick. It is said that he developed paranoid delusions including a fear of being poisoned. Whether his persecutory delusions stemmed from schizophrenia, or other disorders is unknown. Georg Cantor, whose work was arguably the impetus of Gödel's work, also suffered malnourishment and spent time in a sanatorium due to chronic depression.

What happened when I was 16? That is my life...!!!

The fuck does that mean?

Kurt Gödel was famously (infamously) known as a mathematical Platonist, however not entirely sure if he was a Platonist generally speaking@@harold7748

​@@harold7748 oh you poor ignorant Human

Godel was a platonist, so he agreed to an extent with Plato's Theory of Forms. Put simply, in this theory all objects are related to a more perfect/abstract version. e.g.: A circle drawn with a pencil, and a true abstract perfect circle. Plato also believed that all these abstract objects were also related to an ultimate "form of good". Thereby rooting all objects in the universe to a single object called the "form of good". This can be visualised with a kind of family tree of objects. In my opinion Christopher Nolan probably didn't put much thought into Godel's line about trees.

@carloscoll5249 My contention is that much of Plato's Theory of Forms espouses the idea that all things have a perfect and final form... From which they are insufficient. That seems antithetical to all things existing. As if this universe is some deficient attempt at perfect (Platonic) Forms. Every (''final'') stage is but a staging ground from which new stages can be achieved. Life is not some stadium of perfect performance, but perpetual training grounds. Practice, exercise, be. So that our idea of ''final'' and ''perfect'' can itself become more perfect and final. Platonism as you summarized it makes us think there are some things in this world that approximate those perfect Forms. That creates a stratified field, a hierarchy. Some trees are not as becoming as others, some entities are not as close to what they should be as they should be. To what end? By extension, one could argue that the idea that humans are distinct from all other species in the sense that they are superior and more valuable, as if humanity is the pinnacle of all existence. That thought has now become endemic to humanity itself - we allow the environment we are a part of, and dependent on, to serve us. It also creates a hierarchy in humans: if you are not affluent, able-bodied, (and more politically in the West) White, male, hetero, you are deficient. The perfect Form of ''the human'' is x, y, z. Based on what, exactly? Any entity or species that is not human doesn't make the cut, and within humans, if you aren't rich and male, you are an anomaly. And even those rich - affluence being a token of being succesful and efficient (while get-rich-quick schemes are becoming more popular contemporaneously: less effort for more money being inspiring, the poor suffering from it be damned, and those who manage that are now role-models) aren't serving themselves. They are serving what we have now made into deities, the tokens of value - currency. It satisfies no one, not even those hoarding ever-growing heaps of it. Their horizon recedes in their approach... A tragic travesty. I do not solely blame Platonism, if at all. Just thought this was an interesting venue to share my ideas about it with someone acquainted with Plato. While I find that the elegance and simplicity of confronting complex ideas, hallmark of many ancient thinking and thinkers, to be incredibly valuable, I've always found myself sceptical and critical towards Platonic Forms. It does not allow entities to be. It does not allow being to be. It makes being, existing, a shameful thing, always in the shadow of ''Form'', a perfection... But what is the grounds for our knowledge of what that ''perfect'' means, but this reality and what it yields (which is a gross reduction of Artistotle's response, growing a doctrine of his own... what would/could he do if not for his predecessors)? Yes the Theory of Forms is an incredible feat of intellect throughout history, being adapted and persisting in contemporary schools of thought, and is an awesome explanation of how we recognize things to be ''the same'' (e.g. we recognize a tree to be a tree similar to another different tree, even if they are from a different species, or see the unity in an object, not each of its different composite entities down to the molecular level). We still struggle with it to this day, from which many more theories that help us better understand and employ the universe and environments we are a part of. That is one of my favourite things that make me enjoy being granted the finite time as a mortal body. I hope to one day contribute to such progress, even in developing our definition of progress, but I care most for meaning something to the people I met, even if it is in a small thread on youtube:) Thank you for uploading, and making some sense of the sprawling tree and its significance to Plato and Gödel (and the wordplay ;) ''rooting'', love that). I agree, Nolan may not have put much thought into it, but then again, Nolan usually does put quite a bit of thought into even what seem to be throwaway lines. The tree meant a lot, for its structure, top down or bottom up, seemed so simple and elucidating. Think family trees or biological taxonomy. Aristotle took a lot from it: the simplicity and clarity of trees in sorting and classifying categories and sequences of cause and consequence. Perhaps by mere coincidence, it invites us to give it meaning, work and play with.

@@ZoneZoneZ Look up his completeness and especially the incompleteness theorems. I've never seen such a remarkable theorem in mathematical logic. Or in entire science at all.

Agreed

It’s funny how Oppenheimer ignores him to ask Einstein’s help on a math question…