Dear Colleagues, This discussion is continuing to be very enlightening, I feel, for those aware of, but not intimately familiar with, details of both Husserl's approach and Gödel’s statements / theorems.
I suspect that part of the problem lies in the fact that we are dealing with a highly contrasting pair of intellectual discussions, about two entirely different universes of analysis (if that is the right term). I suspect that they may not be compatible, and that that is the real cause for the conflict of perspectives. Husserl was concerned with formulating a philosophically rigorous discussion of the world of experience, from within the world of experience, and set up his criteria on that basis. Gödel on the other hand was operating within the world of formal systems, and showed that if a set of axioms containing arithmetic was consistent, it had to be incomplete - valid statements could be made that are not derivable within the formal system. Although formal systems are designed to apply to concepts within the world of thought i.e. the world of (abstract) phenomenal experience, they are not intended to have semantic application, but only syntactical consistency. To judge their validity or invalidity from a semantic (or even semiotic) perspective of Husserlian phenomena - experience, therefore seems to me to be inappropriate. They are categorically different (linguistic?) structures. Or have I snafued? Alex -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 ____________________________________________________________ 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
