Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.ai.philosophy    |    Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this    |    59,235 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 58,975 of 59,235    |
|    olcott to Mikko    |
|    =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Why_do_people_ignore_the    |
|    05 Jan 26 08:54:07    |
      XPost: sci.logic, sci.math, comp.theory       XPost: sci.lang       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 1/5/2026 8:20 AM, Mikko wrote:       > On 05/01/2026 16:04, olcott wrote:       >       >> ...there is also a close relationship with the “liar” antinomy,14 ...       >> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a       >> similar undecidability proof...       >> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which       >> asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)       >>       >> Gödel, Kurt 1931.       >> On Formally Undecidable Propositions of       >> Principia Mathematica And Related Systems       >>       >> Even when Gödel directly admits that it is       >> as simple as that and people see that he       >> admitted it they still deny this.       >>       >> G := (F ⊬ G) // where A := B means A "is defined as" B       >>       >> LP := ~True(LP) // "This sentence is not true".       >>       >> The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy       >>       >> epistemological antinomy       >> An epistemological antinomy is a fundamental,       >> unresolvable contradiction within human reason,       >> where two opposing conclusions, each supported       >> by seemingly valid arguments, appear equally true.       >       > For most peopple who care at all onlh care about the result and only       > to the extent that that they don't try the impossible. Some people       > want to understand Gödel's proof or some other proof but for most of       > them understanding one proof is enough. Usual alternative proofs are       > fairly similar to the original one and only differ on some details.       > A significantly simpler proof would be interesting but only if it is       > a complete proof.       >              Gödel admits that these simplifications are equivalent.       The only way to totally understand these things is to       boil them down to their barest possible essence. No one       wants to do that because they prefer bluster over truth.              --       Copyright 2026 Olcott |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca