Le 06-juil.-07, à 14:53, LauLuna a écrit :

> But again, for any set of such 'physiological' axioms there is a
> corresponding equivalent set of 'conceptual' axioms. There is all the
> same a logical impossibility for us to know the second set is sound.
> No consistent (and strong enough) system S can prove the soundness of
> any system S' equivalent to S: otherwise S' would prove its own
> soundness and would be inconsistent.  And this is just what is odd.

It is odd indeed. But it is.

> I'd say this is rather Lucas's argument. Penrose's is like this:
> 1. Mathematicians are not using a knowably sound algorithm to do math.
> 2. If they were using any algorithm whatsoever, they would be using a
> knowably sound one.
> 3. Ergo, they are not using any algorithm at all.

Do you agree that from what you say above, "2." is already invalidate?



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

Reply via email to