Tom Caylor wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> > Tom Caylor wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > Again, the kind of formalism that says
> > > > everything can be brought under a single
> > > > formal scheme (the Hilbertian
> > > > programme) is different from the kind
> > > > that says mathematical truths are dependent on axioms,
> > > > and different truths will be arrived at under different
> > > > axioms. Of course the key point here
> > > > is "different truths". Tom is not entitled to assume that
> > > > all roads lead to Rome.
> > >
> > > If your definition of truth is limited to logical inference given a
> > > certain set of axioms and inference rules, then what are we trying to
> > > do on the Everything List?
> >
> > That's *mathematical* truth.
>
> Mathematical logic is richer than that.

##
Advertising

Mathematical logic can't conjure up existential conclusions
without making existential assumptions.
> This is what Bruno is saying,
> that the math path points toward Rome. And it is no more scary (a la
> possible spirits lurking under/in every rock) than the matter path.
> Limiting math as you are doing, and as Brent Meeker does in his
> response to my (X and not-X) note, is ignoring such evidence as the
> proofs of Godel and Tarski's Indefinability Theorem.
They do not disprove formalism, as I have explained.
> Tom
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---