Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!news3.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Putnam reviews Penrose.
Message-ID: <jqbDBMIDw.4rq@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3ss4sm$cjd@mp.cs.niu.edu> <jqbDBIrMr.HGx@netcom.com> <3tttjh$j5p@netnews.upenn.edu> <3u101c$efu@sun001.spd.dsccc.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 21:58:44 GMT
Lines: 53
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:30018 sci.logic:12262

In article <3u101c$efu@sun001.spd.dsccc.com>,
Al Fargnoli <afargnol@spd.dsccc.com> wrote:
>In article <3tttjh$j5p@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>:In article <jqbDBIrMr.HGx@netcom.com>, jqb@netcom (Jim Balter) writes:
>:>			   But if you did have a Goedel sentence, then either
>:>you couldn't 't empirically determine it, or you could and you could publish
>:>it, along with your explanation that you can't prove it but you've discovered
>:>empirically that it's your Goedel sentence and so you know it's true
>:>nonetheless; in fact, since you know it's your Goedel sentence, you can prove
>:>it's true by citing Goedel's theorem.  Which is a contradiction,
>:
>:So your hypothesis, "if you did have a Goedel sentence" is provably false.
>:
>:Congratulations.
>:
>:>								  so you cannot
>:>empirically encounter your Goedel limitations whether you have them or not.
>:
>:But fortunately, you've just settled the matter by a proof.
>:
>:>Unless you're a circle jerk.
>:
>:You're the one who (a) keeps assuming his conclusion and (b) proves what
>:he keeps claiming is false.  Have fun.
>
>Ah, but Weiner's logic is intellectually dishonest.  Balter's
>proposition was in the form of:  If A, then (B xor C).  Then,
>Weiner agrees with Balter that C (you can publish your Goedel
>sentence) is false.  Somehow, Weiner concludes that A (you do
>have a Goedel sentence) must be false (while it is obvious that
>Balter is concluding that B [you cannot empirically determine
>your Goedel sentence] is true).
>
>Weiner seems to be arguing that humans don't have Goedel sentences
>because none have been determined/found.  Balter, successfully,
>_proves_ that this argument is unsound.  For some reason, Weiner
>_pretends_ [I believe that his mistake in logic was intentional,
>hence my use of "intellectually dishonest" above] to miss Balter's
>point, and then writes the _lie_ that Balter "proves [that] what
>he keeps claiming is false."
>
>I have a hunch that Weiner disagrees with Penrose and is having
>these discussions/arguments for "fun."

It's possible.  The only other explanation for such density in an apparently
intelligent person is that he is in the grips of a most powerful ideology.



-- 
<J Q B>

