Work #906 · Mature (the Princeton period — Gödel's only published paper in general relativity) period

An Example of a New Type of Cosmological Solution to Einstein's Field Equations

Gödel's 1949 rotating-universe solution — a mathematically consistent cosmology with closed timelike curves

Kurt Gödel · 1949 (Reviews of Modern Physics 21, in the Einstein 70th-birthday Festschrift) · English · Physics-cosmology paper

Tradition: General relativity / philosophy of time

A mathematically consistent rotating universe in which closed timelike curves exist — time-travel into the past is permitted by Einstein's equations

Gödel's 1949 contribution to the Einstein 70th-birthday Festschrift exhibits a cosmological solution to Einstein's field equations in which the matter content is a pressure-free perfect fluid rotating about every point and a non-zero cosmological constant. The solution is mathematically consistent but physically pathological in one striking respect: every point lies on a closed timelike curve, so "time-travel into the past" — and hence violation of any global temporal ordering — is permitted by general relativity itself. In the companion philosophical paper "A Remark about the Relationship between Relativity Theory and Idealistic Philosophy" (also 1949), Gödel argued that this shows the ordinary intuitive concept of time must be illusory: if a universe with no global time is physically possible, then global time is not metaphysically essential to physical reality, and the lived "now" must be an artefact of consciousness rather than a feature of the world. The Gödel universe became a touchstone in twentieth-century philosophy of time (Earman, Stein, Savitt) and in the philosophy of general relativity.

Author

Editions cited

  • "An Example of a New Type of Cosmological Solution to Einstein's Field Equations of Gravitation," Reviews of Modern Physics 21 (1949); collected in Kurt Gödel: Collected Works, vol. II (Oxford UP, 1990)

School Embodiments

Eternalism · 25%
Platonism (Classical) · 20%
Realism · 15%
Analytic Metaphysics / Logical Atomism · 15%
Multiverse Theory · 10%
Rationalism · 10%

The Gödel universe is the strongest twentieth-century argument from physics for a block-universe / eternalist conception of time: if intuitive temporal becoming is incompatible with possible solutions to the field equations, becoming cannot be objective.

"It seems that one obtains an unequivocal proof for the view of those philosophers who deny the objectivity of change and consider change as an illusion." (Gödel, "A Remark...", 1949)

Gödel was a lifelong platonist about mathematical and (he thought) physical reality; the use of a mathematical possibility to draw a metaphysical conclusion about the actual world is paradigmatically platonist.

"The mere compatibility with the laws of nature of worlds in which there is no distinguished absolute time, and in which, therefore, no objective lapse of time can exist, throws some light on the meaning of time also in those worlds in which an absolute time can be defined." (Gödel, "A Remark...")
Realism 15%

Scientific realism about general relativity: if the field equations have a rotating-universe solution, then the question whether the actual universe is such is a substantive empirical question, not a conceptual one.

"In all cosmological solutions of the gravitational equations a unique world-time exists, but this is not implied by general relativity itself." (Gödel, 1949 paper, §3)

The paper is the source-text for the analytic-metaphysical literature on the reality of tense, time-travel, and the block universe (Lewis, Mellor, Earman).

"The existence of an objective lapse of time, however, means (or, at least, is equivalent to the fact) that reality consists of an infinity of layers of 'now' which come into existence successively. But, if simultaneity is something relative... reality cannot be split up into such layers in an objectively determined way." (Gödel, "A Remark...")

The use of a possible (rotating) universe as evidence about the actual universe presupposes a kind of modal cosmology — taking other solutions as more than mathematical artefacts.

"If the experience of the lapse of time can exist without an objective lapse of time, no reason can be given why an objective lapse of time should be assumed at all." (Gödel, "A Remark...")

Gödel's reasoning is a paradigm rationalist move: from a mathematical possibility to a substantive conclusion about the nature of time, without empirical mediation.

"In our world, ... a temporal succession of layers can be defined; but the very fact that such a definition is possible only in our world shows that the temporal ordering is not an essential feature of physical reality." (Gödel, "A Remark...")

Internal Tensions

The Gödel universe is not (and was not expected by Gödel to be) the actual cosmology — the observed universe shows no global rotation. The philosophical argument depends on the modal move from "physically possible" to "metaphysically informative," which presentists and growing-block theorists resist (Tooley, Markosian, Sider). Whether the existence of pathological solutions teaches anything about the actual structure of time remains contested.

I. Time

The decisive dimension — the paper exhibits a relativistic universe with no global time function; closed timelike curves through every point mean past, present, and future cannot be globally distinguished.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Relational Grain: Continuous Freedom: Deterministic Traversability: Cyclical Direction: Non-directional Dimensionality: One

II. Space

Curved Lorentzian spacetime; the rotating matter induces a non-trivial global geometry.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Curved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local

III. Matter

Pressure-free dust with non-zero density and angular velocity; Einstein's equations are satisfied with a negative cosmological constant.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

The observer is "local" — a worldline in the spacetime — and the paper denies that any privileged global "now" picks out the observer's present.

Attributes
Time Instance: Multiple Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Partial Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None

V. Energy

Energy-momentum tensor of the rotating dust; the cosmological-constant term contributes a constant background.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Reversible

VI. Information

The mathematical content of the solution and the philosophical lesson Gödel draws — that the lived "now" is not in the physics itself.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Conserved Granularity: Continuous

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

How An Example of a New Type of Cosmological Solution to Einstein's Field Equations resolves each dilemma

51 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 23 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 6 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Do you really choose?
If the brain is a physical system and physical systems are governed by laws, then every choice is also a chain of causes — which raises the question of what was really left to choose.
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
On this view, the future is determined and you are genuinely choosing. Those aren't contradictory because the determination runs through you rather than around you: your reasoning, deliberation, and assent are the way the determined outcome gets settled. Choice is what it feels like from …
Roads not taken The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. (69%) · Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Addiction looks from one angle like the textbook case of agency failing — a person doing what they don't, in any meaningful sense, want to do. From another angle it looks like agency at work in hard conditions. Which it is depends on what agency is.
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
On this view, the addict is acting within a determined order but is genuinely acting — making decisions, endorsing or resisting urges, seeking or refusing help. Responsibility attaches not because some uncaused choice happened, but because the addict is the kind of agent through which …
Roads not taken The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. (69%) · The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
When an autonomous AI takes an action that harms someone, the question of who or what is responsible — the developer, the operator, the model itself — turns on whether the model is the kind of thing that can be a responsible agent.
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
On this view, what makes a being responsible is not indeterminism but the kind of process the being is. An AI that deliberates, considers consequences, can be given reasons, and modifies its behaviour on reflection is doing what responsible agency is, even if its underlying …
Roads not taken An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. (69%) · An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers. (10%) · Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one. (6%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
4 mainstream positions
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
What makes someone the same person over time?
When dementia hollows out memory, when a coma resolves with no recall, when you imagine being uploaded — the question of whether the surviving person is still you turns on what kind of thing the 'you' was to begin with.
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
On this view, the observer is not bound to a single present. Identity is something that exists across moments — as a pattern, an ancestral line, a trans-temporal structure. Uploading, in this picture, is not a metaphysical impossibility but an engineering question; ancestors are real …
Roads not taken You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. (36%) · You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect. (29%) · There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose. (14%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Loss of memory, of recognition, of the cognitive patterns that made the person — does this end the person, or merely the person you knew? The answer turns on what makes someone who they are.
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
On this view, the person is constituted by a pattern extending across moments — memory, narrative, characteristic ways of being. As dementia erodes the pattern, the person is correspondingly diminished. What remains is real but is less than what was; the marriage to the person …
Roads not taken Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed. (36%) · The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's. (29%) · There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here. (14%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The Star Trek transporter problem: a machine scans your body atom by atom, transmits the pattern, builds an exact duplicate at the destination, and dismantles the original. Whether you arrive at the destination or die in the scanner is the question; the answer depends on what you are.
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
On this view, you are the trans-temporal pattern that has shown up in this body up to now. The teleporter preserves the pattern — destroys one instance, builds another — and the pattern is what matters. You step in and you step out. The fact …
Roads not taken Different body, different person — you died in the scanner. (36%) · The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it. (29%) · There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed. (14%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (25/202)
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Carbon emissions in your country contribute to flooding in another. A factory's effluent across the border kills ecosystems you'll never see. Whether you bear moral weight for what happens far away turns on whether distance dilutes obligation.
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; what is real is the connection, not its length.
On this view, the obligations one bears extend across distance because the connections do. Carbon emissions, trade flows, the global supply chains we are part of, the ancestral and ecological webs that hold the planet together — these constitute real connections that distance does not …
Roads not taken Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. (50%) · Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos. (29%) · Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real. (8%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (26/202)
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Ancestor veneration, intercession with saints, the moral weight of a promise made to someone now gone — these all presuppose that the dead are present in some sense beyond memory. Whether they are turns on whether an observer is the kind of thing that exists in a single moment or across many.
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
On this view, an observer is not located at a single moment but extends across moments. The dead, on this signature, are not gone — they are elsewhere on the same trans-temporal structure that you yourself occupy. Ancestor veneration, intercession with saints, the moral weight …
Roads not taken Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. (44%) · The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence. (35%) · From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional. (8%)
26 mainstream positions
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering. 13% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach. 13% Does prayer change God's mind? Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode. 13% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form. 17% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history. 17% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle. 17% Could causation work backwards? Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle. 17% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions. 17% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't. 17% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 49% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 49% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. 37% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. 37% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. 37% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 32% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 32% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 32% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 32% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 32% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 30% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 30%
6 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
← #905 The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language All Works #907 The Logic of the Place of Nothingness and the Religious Worldview →