Hi Stephen,

Le 23-nov.-05, à 01:29, Stephen Paul King a écrit :

Does this assertion not assume a particular method of coding the "true" grammatical statements? Could we not show that if we allow for all possible
encodings, symbol systems, etc. that *any* sequence will code a true

Sure. It is enough to decide to encode some truth, like "1 = 1" by any strings. For example the string "6§yhY!!è" will effectively encode "1 = 1". Now, for any effective coding procedure, you will only get a tiny part of the true statements of arithmetic, by incompleteness. And that is why we need to fix the encoding at the start. Then, in any everything-like theory, we restrict the interpretation by the local encoding/decoding made by local machines, ... If not, the only possible TOE will be the inconsistent theory having all formula as theorem. This does not discriminate anything and could hardly be considered as providing a theory in the general sense of scientific theory, given that any facts always confirm it and always contradict it. It would be like to say that George Bush is the president of France, adding (after the history teacher makes a disappointment grin), "oh, but by France I mean that large north american country". Cool: you will always be right!




Reply via email to