> On Jan 21, 9:54 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote: > >> No. Friedman has explicitly stated he basically thinks whenever we >> look into any field of human thought we will find basic, fundamental, >> and natural principles which, when formalized, have the consistency >> strength of set theory (possibly extended with some large cardinal >> axioms). Presumably because his research into these matters is >> (partly?) funded by the Templeton Foundation, he's chosen to >> illustrate this point -- made previously in terms of "concept >> calculus" etc. -- by means of vaguely theological bandying about of >> somewhat arbitrary formalism. > > As far as what he displayed I don't see anything "natural", I see the > "supernatural" that is been formalized.
There can be natural principles regarding supernatural things, in the sense that these principles are naturally suggested (to many people) by the concepts involved. As implied above, I would argue that Friedman's ("supernatural" and "divine") systems aren't really very natural from a theological point of view, but this is probably for someone more expert in theological matters to comment on.
> If ZFC according to what he is saying is provable to be consistent in > some system that is "mutually interpretable" with supernaturally based > system, then this does imparts unnaturalness of ZFC.
-- Aatu Koskensilta (firstname.lastname@example.org)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus