On 12/10/2018 7:37 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2018, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 12/9/2018 6:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
They are fundamental only in the sense that one can use them
as axioms. So their fundamentalism is circular.
Brent
On 12/9/2018 7:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than
this. e.g. because the following statement is */true/* "two
has a successor" then there exists a successor to 2 distinct
from any previous number. Similarly, the */truth/* of "9 is
not prime" implies the existence of a factor of 9 besides 1
and 9.
That position was defensible before Godel, but not after. He
showed mathematical truth cannot be based on axioms.
But he didn't show it could be based on something else.
We're talking about primary substances/foundations of reality. Those
things, that by their definition of being primary objects, are not
based on anything else.
That neither he, nor anyone else showed mathematical truth is or can
be based on something else would be expected if it is a primary object.
That's like saying "Sherlock Holmes companion is named Watson." is a
primary truth because it isn't derived from something else.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
