On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote:

Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assumeI want toattack you (and thus are defensive and not open to my criticism),and I amobviously frustrated by that, which is not conducive to a gooddiscussion.We are not opertaing on the same level. You argue using rational,"precise"arguments, while I am precisely showing how these don't settle or even adress the issue.Like with Gödel, sure we can embed all the meta in arithmetic, butthen westill need a super-meta (etc...).

`I don't think so. We need the understanding of elementary arithmetic,`

`no need of meta for that.`

`You might confuse the simple truth "1+1=2", and the complex truth`

`"Paul understood that 1+1=2". Those are very different, but with comp,`

`both can be explained *entirely* in arithmetic. You have the right to`

`be astonished, as this is not obvious at all, and rather counter-`

`intuitive.`

There is no proof that can change this,and thus it is pointless to study proofs regarding this issue (asthey justintroduce new metas because their proof is not written in arithmetic).

`But they are. I think sincerely that you miss Gödel's proof. There`

`will be opportunity I say more on this, here, or on the FOAR list. It`

`is hard to sum up on few lines. May just buy the book by Davis (now`

`print by Dover) "The undecidable", it contains all original papers by`

`Gödel, Post, Turing, Church, Kleene, and Rosser.`

Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.