Brent, I think if a 'model' is *complete*, it is not a model, it is the
Consequently it (as the real thing) is not provable from within - Godel, or
not. (dON'T ASK ME ABOUT "real", please <G>)
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 10/29/2012 10:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>> Some more quotes from From Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of
>> Perspective by Bas C Van Fraassen.
>> ......(quot4s deleted)
> If the model is complete it must already include us - as well as what we
> will think about it and do with it. But then this will run into Godelian
> incompleteness. If it is true it will be unprovable within the model.
> So apparently we need to have something in addition to what science has
>> given us here. The extra is the self-ascription of location."
>> p. 83 "Have we now landed in a dilemma for our view of science as
>> paradigmatically objective? If we say that the self-ascription is a simple,
>> objective statement of fact, then science is inevitably doomed to be
>> objectively incomplete. If instead we say it is something irreducibly
>> subjective, then we have also admitted a limit to objectivity, we have let
>> subjectivity into science."
> 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 everything-list+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com <everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
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