Quoting ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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
Looks like a Truth to me. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck . . . Platt > 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/ > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
