Right. And even less than complete models can run afoul of Godel, e.g. if I created a model of myself. It might be an accurate model, but I couldn't know that it was. On the other hand, John Mikes could know that it was.


On 10/29/2012 12:53 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent, I think if a 'model' is *complete*, it is not a model, it is the real 
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 <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 10/29/2012 10:21 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

        Some more quotes from From Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of 
        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.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to