Given a machine's inability to prove its own consistency, and how this
result gives rise to the many logical distinctions that map to the
hypostases (per Plotinus) as you've written, then I wonder what you
would say to this: if a machine is universal, surely it can run a
program that implements a (higher order or more-encompassing) logical
machine that *can* prove the machine's consistency. If so, can't it
use that result to prove its own consistency?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at