Le 06-juil.-07, à 14:53, LauLuna a écrit :
> But again, for any set of such 'physiological' axioms there is a
> corresponding equivalent set of 'conceptual' axioms. There is all the
> same a logical impossibility for us to know the second set is sound.
> No consistent (and strong enough) system S can prove the soundness of
> any system S' equivalent to S: otherwise S' would prove its own
> soundness and would be inconsistent. And this is just what is odd.
It is odd indeed. But it is.
> I'd say this is rather Lucas's argument. Penrose's is like this:
>
> 1. Mathematicians are not using a knowably sound algorithm to do math.
> 2. If they were using any algorithm whatsoever, they would be using a
> knowably sound one.
> 3. Ergo, they are not using any algorithm at all.
Do you agree that from what you say above, "2." is already invalidate?
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Jul 07 2007 - 07:00:06 PDT