Brent Meeker wrote:

> 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.  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.
> >
> > Tom
> But as I understand it, Bruno wants to identify "mathematical existence" with 
> true existence statements about mathematical objects.
>  Some of these are unprovable.  They can be consistently added to the axioms. 
>  But also their negation can be consistently added to the axioms.  But not 
> both.  So there are disjoint realms of consistent mathematics - some are 
> Rome, some are Athens, some are Tuva, most are Harry Potter's home town.

I suppose that is why he wants to base his case on the
subset of arithmetic everyone agrees on.

> Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to