Brent Meeker wrote: > > However, in defense of Bruno, he uses [] as "provable" and > > <> as "consistent", which seem pretty well defined within a > > given axiomatic system. It is when he equates "provable" > > with "necessary in all possible worlds" that I think I hear > > a train.
I only equate "p provable by a consistent machine M" with "p true in all accessible (by M) world/states-relative-to-M (if any)" Bruno
