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: Torkel Franzen argues
Replies: 25   Last Post: May 17, 2013 3:52 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
namducnguyen

Posts: 2,688
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Torkel Franzen argues
Posted: May 5, 2013 1:52 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 04/05/2013 6:04 PM, fom wrote:
> On 5/4/2013 11:07 AM, Frederick Williams wrote:
>> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26/04/2013 11:09 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote:

>>
>>>> On 2013-04-25, FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Now PA has been proved consistent in ZF or NBG, but then that
>>>>> brings the consistency of axioms for set theory.

>>>
>>> Exactly right. And exactly my point.
>>>
>>> Somewhere, somehow, a circularity or an infinite regression
>>> of _mathematical knowledge_ will be reached,

>>
>> How does one reach an infinite regression?
>>

>>> and at that point
>>> we still have to confront with the issue of mathematical relativity.

>>
>> It is not the case that either we go round in a circle or we regress
>> forever.

>
> Out of curiosity, how do you come to that conclusion? I have
> come to the exact opposite conclusion.



> The only sense I can
> make of foundations is that it is more like a jigsaw puzzle
> that must address circularity and regress directly and with
> the objective of making it harmless.


I couldn't agree less; and that is exactly what I've proposed
for the past years.

The way out of, or the way to manage and address, the circularity or
and the regression mentioned above is to accept certain non-inference
rules about unknowability, impossibility, as part of the FOL reasoning
edifice.

The entire human mathematical reasoning would then be a balance of
what we can know, through the canonical rules of inference, and what
we can _not_ know, through the newly accepted _non-inference rules_ .

Exactly what these rules of non-inference are we can sort it out.
But there's a consequence we have to accept as well: mathematics
in general would be relativistic, with certain mathematical truth
values can be chosen _by choice_ (at will).

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------



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.