On 12/13/2016 11:15 AM, John Collier wrote:
For some theories, like number theory and set theory, there are statements that are true but not deducible. I would think they are entailed by the theory even if not provable, so I would call them part of the theory.
I agree. I just blame my fingers for typing "deductive closure" instead of "set of all entailments".
the issue I am bringing up here has measurable but not predictable consequences in physics. I don't think Peirce was aware of such situations...
Perhaps not. But if someone had asked him whether such situations are possible, I suspect that he would pause for a moment and say "Don't block the way of inquiry." John
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
