Krim ... must rush ... responded to you alraedy in this thread ... ... but follow that Godel reasoning to your view of how "reasonable reason" is defined ... and Godel shows you why it never can be (outside a closed system of logic)
You CANNOT be complete AND consistent. Ian On 5/16/08, Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ron: > Hello Krimel, it is not often you and I disagree, I think linguistic > statements of truth are the same as mathematical proof with the > exception That mathematical proof utilizes axioms whereas legal > proof utilizes Law. Logic is all about certainty in expression > of meaning. > Russell took half of Principia Mathematica to prove the axiom of > addition. Mathmatics may be more accurate and precise but it's methods are > the same. > The establishment of a true statement through objective argument. > Whether that argument is expressed through language or symbol. > Math is an objective argument Much like a legal objective argument, > only in legal argument sophistry Is permitted. But have you ever read a > legal document? It is as objectively Specific as language can get with > the whole idea of establishing certainty. > > [Krimel] > My point is that mathematical symbols, the properties they have and the > operations that can be performed on them are unambiguous. To the extent that > you and I understand them, we understand them in the same way or not at all. > There can be no argument between us as to the correctness of our > mathematical thinking. This was the dream that Russell and Whitehead > pursued. If mathematics could be shown to derive purely from logic then > perhaps philosophy and mathematics could be united. Unfortunately they > failed in this effort and Gödel offered a mathematical proof as to why this > was so. > > Legal proof employs a much fuller range of the tools of justification. The > standard of truth is reasonable doubt. Lawyers use reason and logic but they > work equally hard to make emotional appeals. Legal documents are full of > weasel wording and the illusion of specificity because that's the way the > law works. It is an attempt to substitute language for meaning. And it is > why Jesus railed against those who paid heed to the "word" at the expense of > what is "written" in the heart. What is written in the heart is scribed with > emotion and a sense of justice and the perception of Quality. > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
