Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: ZFC and God
Replies: 2   Last Post: Jan 22, 2013 12:39 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Zaljohar@gmail.com

Posts: 2,665
Registered: 6/29/07
Re: ZFC and God
Posted: Jan 22, 2013 12:39 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Jan 22, 11:02 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
> Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > 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.

>
>   Why?
>
> --

If one tells me that he managed to prove consistency of ZFC in some
'supernaturally' based system then this would initially cast some kind
of unnaturalness on ZFC itself, however this would be confirmed if it
is shown that ZFC can ONLY be so proved consistent. On the other hand
all this would abolish in my own opinion if one presents a proof of
consistency of ZFC in some 'naturally' based formalization. Of course
I can paraphrase what Harvey is saying by saying that some concepts
involving the supernatural are so strong that they are stronger than
ZFC, of course the focus would be about that system and ZFC would not
be the main concern here, since in many ways speech about the
supernatural is already expected to be stronger than about the
natural!

Zuhair



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.