Hi Glenn and all,
As Glenn points out I was careless about using the word "absolute" rather than
"complete" in referring to Goedel's theorem. However, I do not believe that it
changes the essence of my argument.
> JONATHAN:
> In an earlier post, reference was made to Goedels theorem, which states
> that an infinite number of axioms are needed to make a system absolute.
>
GLENN:
>No, this is not what Godel's theorem states.
Had I written "complete", Glenn would probably have accepted the definition.
Goedel's "incompleteness" theorem states that no statement can be proved
without reference to an external fact or axiom. Once you internalize the
"external" axiom, still more external axioms are needed. Thus no statement can
ever be "absolutely" complete. If it always depends on reference to external
axioms, it must also be RELATIVE to the external axioms chosen (i.e. non
absolute).
> JONATHAN:
> Thus, IMHO the modified version would:
> Truth must be logically consistent.
> No logical system is absolute.
> Therefore, truth is relative.
GLENN:
>I can only guess what is meant by an 'absolute' system. I assume it doesn't
>mean 'complete', otherwise you'd have just said 'complete'. Truth may
>indeed be relative, but it's not proved here. Godel's Thm has nothing to
>say about relative truth.
I thus hold to my original statements.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:59 BST