Gödel's arithmetization was ingenious, he was able to make G sayAgent Smith wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 3:05 amIt was a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgment of Gödel's logical prowess. Nevertheless you have a point! History is on your side on that score.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 5:56 pm"I'd say Gödel is right even when he's wrong! "Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 6:34 am
Ok! I've read a few of Skepdick's posts. He sounds like a reasonable person.
Coming to Gödel, I find it extremely unlikely that he would've made a silly mistake like the ones most skeptical of his eponymous theorems say he made. I'd say Gödel is right even when he's wrong! I'm a big fan you see.
That kind of thinking can cause the end of life on Earth.
I am refuting Gödel as a proxy for refuting Tarski.
Unless humanity has a precise definition of
the notion of True(L, x) we have no definite
way of discerning truth from dangerous lies.
According to the principle of explosion:
FALSE proves that Donald Trump is the Christ.
My overarching principle is {correct reasoning} in this regard
some of classical logic is simply incorrect.
Focus on the class of statements G, the Gödel sentence, belongs to.
something like "G is unprovable in F" when G cannot express anything
like that, it is only the language of arithmetic.
If he started with a language that has its own unprovability operator
his proof would have been 100,000 times less complex and then his trick
would be exposed as the baker that can't bake a cake from house bricks.
When F asserts its own unprovability in F the proof of G in F is analogous
to a person trying to prove that they themselves never existed and math
calling them stupid because they cant do this.