On the Incomplete System and the Infinite Truthmaker
Quaeritur utrum systema finitum, si sit consistent, possit continere veritatem suam propriam, an vero, iuxta theoremata incompleti Gödeliana, omnis ordo finitus necessario referat ad veritatis fontem extra se—ad infinitum veritatis factorem.
It is asked whether a finite system, if consistent, can contain its own truth, or whether—according to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems—every finite order must necessarily refer to a source of truth beyond itself, to an infinite truthmaker.
__________
Thesis
Gödel’s incompleteness results demonstrate formally what metaphysics has long intuited: The finite cannot ground the totality of its own truth. Every consistent formal system sufficient for arithmetic contains true statements it cannot prove. Hence, truth exceeds derivation, and the complete explanation of truth demands participation in something transcending the finite system.
Locus Classics
“Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is infinite.”
— Psalm 147:5
Aquinas comments: “Intellectus divinus est infinitus, quia adaequat veritatem ipsius Dei, quae est infinitum esse.” (STI.14.6.) The divine intellect alone comprehends all truth as being identical to being. Human or finite systems of reason, by contrast, express truth participatively, that is, as reflections of the infinite intellect. Thus, the logic of finitude corresponds to the metaphysics of participation.
Explicatio
In 1931, 25 year-old Kurt Gödel, an Austrian logician, published “Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme” (Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38, 1931). His goal was to investigate the limits of formal systems such as the Principia Mathematica by Whitehead and Russell, which sought to derive all mathematical truths from a finite set of axioms through mechanical rules of deduction.
To understand the significance of this, we must review some key notions. A formal system may be thought of as a rigorously defined language governed by rules. While its syntactic component consists of symbols and derivations its semantic component is concerned with truth and meaning about numbers or other entities to which it refers. For such a system to be a satisfactory foundation of mathematics, it must have two crucial properties:
Consistency: No contradiction can be derived within the system.
Completeness: Every true statement expressible in the system can be derived from the system's axioms.
Gödel’s work proved that these two properties cannot coexist in any finite system capable of expressing arithmetic.
II. Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem
Gödel showed in this proof how to assign to each formula and proof a numerical code, a process that is now called Gödel numbering. By this ingenious device, statements about formulas could become statements about numbers. He then constructed a sentence G that effectively says of itself,
“This statement is not provable within this system.”
If the system is consistent, it cannot prove G, for to do so would render it inconsistent, that is, it would prove a falsehood. Yet if the system is consistent, G is in fact true, since its unprovability makes the assertion it contains correct. Hence, G is true but unprovable within the system. The upshot of this is this: No consistent, sufficiently expressive finite system can be complete. Simply put, there will always exist true propositions that escape its derivations.
III. Gödel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem
Gödel then proved a deeper corollary, that no consistent system can prove its own consistency. But to show that its axioms are non-contradictory, one must appeal to a meta-system, to a higher language standing outside the system itself. Hence, every finite logical order depends on another for its assurance of truth and coherence.
IV. Philosophical Significance
Gödel’s theorems thus reveal a structural transcendence of truth over formal expression. They are not merely mathematical curiosities but demonstrations of a universal condition of finitude, that truth always surpasses the framework that tries to contain it. Every closed system that seeks to explain itself without remainder either collapses into contradiction or appeals to a higher order.
Metaphysically, this mirrors the ancient insight that the finite requires the infinite as its truthmaker. The correspondence between logical form and ontological order is profound: just as a formal system needs a meta-system to ground its truth, so the finite world needs a transcendent act of being to ground its reality.
What Gödel discovered formally, metaphysics already discerned existentially: veritas non est intra ordinem finitum nisi per participationem veritatis infiniti.
Obiectiones
Objiectio I. Formalists like David Hilbert hold that the incompleteness theorems apply only to mathematical systems, not to reality. They concern symbols and proofs, not the metaphysical order of being.
Objiectio II. Scientific empiricism argues that science does not need to be “complete” in this logical sense. Explanatory power depends on observation, not on formal derivation. Thus, Gödel’s results have no bearing on physical intelligibility.
Objiectio III. Reductive naturalists claims that the analogy between formal systems and the finite world is metaphorical, and thus to move from logical incompleteness to ontological dependence is an illicit category jump.
Objiectio IV. Skeptics of many kinds opine that Gödel’s theorem requires arithmetic within a system, and that nature is not a formal calculus. Accordingly, it is meaningless to say that the universe is “incomplete” in the Gödelian sense.
Objiectio V. The cautious theologian claims that appealing to Gödel to prove divine necessity risks confusing logic with revelation. God’s infinity is not a corollary of syntax but a matter of faith.
Responsiones
Ad I. Gödel’s theorems indeed concern formal systems, yet they express a universal relation between expression and truth. Wherever truth is represented within a finite structure, that structure cannot exhaust it. The logical limit mirrors an ontological condition.
Ad II. Scientific explanation presupposes coherence and consistency within its theories. Gödel shows that such coherence cannot be self-guaranteed; it must be received from a higher frame. Hence, the dependence of empirical science on deeper intelligibility is reinforced, not diminished.
Ad III. The analogy is legitimate when carefully drawn. Formal systems model the relation of expression to truth; the finite world models the relation of being to its source. In both, self-sufficiency proves impossible; participation becomes the only path to completeness.
Ad IV. The universe is not a calculus, yet our reason reflects its structure through logic.To say that the world is “Gödelian” is not to mathematize it but to recognize that finitude, even in its most abstract forms, cannot close upon itself.
Ad V. The appeal to Gödel is not a theological proof but a formal analogy. It illuminates by example what theology asserts by revelation: that all truth in the finite is truth by participation in the Infinite Word.
Determinatio
From the foregoing it is determined that:
Gödel’s incompleteness theorems formally demonstrate the incapacity of the finite for self-completion. Every consistent system depends upon truths it cannot contain and upon a meta-system it cannot itself generate.
Truth transcends formal derivation. Just as no calculus can produce all truths of arithmetic, no finite ontology can account for its own intelligibility.
Consistency requires transcendence. The assurance that a system is non-contradictory always arises from a higher standpoint.
Ontologically, this implies that the finite world’s coherence depends on an Infinite act of being.The Infinite functions as the universal truthmaker. The meta-system for logic corresponds analogically to the Creator for creation: the necessary being in whom all contingent truths are grounded and from whom their coherence flows.
Therefore, Gödel’s result, though mathematical in form, reveals a metaphysical truth: the finite is intelligible only by participation in the Infinite. The world’s incompleteness is not deficiency but sign — a structural openness to the Infinite intellect whose understanding is unbounded.
Hence, the incompleteness of systems becomes a formal witness within reason to the metaphysical participation of all truth in God — in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi (Colossians 2:3).
