Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Texts and style . Photocopies of three handwritten pages titled “Güdel's Ontological Proof” (Appendix B) began to circulate in the early 1980s. The handwriting is Dana Scott's; the ideas are Kurt Güdel's. They agree with ideas conveyed in two pages of notes in Güdel's own hand dated 10 February (Appendix A). Scott's three pages, on which I concentrate here, contain a sketch of a theory of positive properties, individual essences, and necessary existence that culminates in a theorem that says that it is necessary that there is a being that has every positive property. The plan of the proof honors Leibniz. It goes through demonstrations of the possibility of such a being, and that such a being is either not possible or necessary. Its style is Spinozistic but formal: Axioms and definitions are set, and theorems are proved in a formal language that is free of amphibolies that bother classical proofs. Its logic is quantified modal, not simply quantificational as classical proofs, nor only sentential modal as Hartshorne's. As said, it does not merely postulate the possibility of its God-like being but demonstrates it with no suggestion that it is forthcoming given merely the conceivability of a being that has every positive property, and that this definition of God-likeness harbors no contradiction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".