Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?

From: Daryl McCullough (stevendaryl3016_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/30/05

  • Next message: LordBeotian: "Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones"" 
    Date: 30 Jan 2005 06:03:40 -0800

    tchow@lsa.umich.edu says...

    >Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >>But isn't this just a difference in the feeling of "completeness" of
    >>the stories? We feel that our description of sets (the cumulative
    >>hierarchy) are categorical, while Dickens characterization of Oliver
    >>Twist is not.
    >
    >That could be. But off the top of my head, it seems that everything we
    >uncontroversially regard as a "fictional creation" fails to be "complete"
    >for the simple reason that a finite human creator can't possibly flesh
    >out every last detail. Bivalence seems to me to be very naturally tied
    >to the notion of a real existence independent from us, even if strictly
    >speaking it doesn't have to be.

    So this kind of platonism says that anything that can be described in
    enough detail as to answer (in principle, if not in practice) all
    possible questions has a real existence. I guess that makes sense,
    although it seems to me that belief in the categoricity of a description
    is all you need for most "applications" of platonism (such as whether
    it is meaningful to say that CH is true or false). 

    --
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
  • Next message: LordBeotian: "Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones""
    • Quantcast