Re: Indefinite truth

2018-04-10 Thread Lawrence Crowell
He might have been listening to The Rolling Stones, "I can't get no 
satisfaction." Hamkins is pretty reliable though.

LC

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 1:39:54 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> I wonder if Bruno is familiar with this paper? 
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.0670.pdf 
>
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Indefinite truth

2018-04-10 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 10 Apr 2018, at 08:39, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> I wonder if Bruno is familiar with this paper?
> 
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.0670.pdf



Not bad at all, interesting! I did not got the time to verify all details, but 
it looks valid!

But all what they show is that , let me quote them:

<<
Thus, two models of set theory can agree on which natural numbers exist and 
agree on all the details of the standard model of arithmetic, yet disagree on 
which sentences are true in that model.
>>

The contrary would have been astonishing. That is part of why I insist 
Mechanism is a theology, a risky invitation of an unknown at the table, which 
looks strangely like yourself.

The Model of Set Theory have too much imagination. I am already happy that ZF 
and ZFC captured the same arithmetical truth. 

The paper does not illustrate that the notion of arithmetical truth is not 
definite. It illustrates that machine with diverse beliefs in diverse 
infinities will not find a common approximation oft that truth easily, and 
might indeed interpret it differently, and disagrees on many, arithmetical 
sentences.

The universal numbers are condemned to have difficulties to agree or disagree 
already on their relations with the “other” universal numbers. Set theory is a 
tool for understanding the numbers, but by incompleteness it cannot do that 
completely, and the paper here illustrates that ZF + very different axioms can 
get different part of the arithmetical truth, limited, and different from each 
others. That would not be the case, with semis-computable sets, so this is 
weakened, in the computationalist realm by the use of actual infinities.

You can relate this also to the fact that the Löbian universal machine 
disagrees already with all complete theories you would claim about it/her. 

Bruno


> 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.