Re: Torkel Franzen on truth

Nam D. Nguyen wrote:
Daryl McCullough wrote:
Nam D. Nguyen says...

and in fact I would have not involved in this conversation at all!

And we'd all be happier.

Somewhere I think I've heard: to kill a dog we would just label it a "mad" dog!

Seriously. In the thread "About Consistency in 1st Order Theories."
there was this comment about what I posted then from DCU (Dec. 22nd, 2005):

<quote>
If you have a specific replacement for FOL in mind then you might
get people to comment on it. But you don't, you're just sort of
hunting around for the replacement that's going to make you happy.
If you want people to help you with this you might start by
trying to convince people that there's a _need_ for this radical
new version of logic.

Exactly what the objective is is not clear to me. It seems possible
that you might want to call it something other than "logic".
Because whatever it is, it seems that in the thing you're looking
for the "logic" is going to vary from person to person, and I
suspect it's going to seem to a lot of people like the whole
point to _logic_ is to study _correct_ reasoning, which will
_not_ vary from person to person.

Now, the class of mathematical facts that a given individual
is actually able to prove certainly varies from person to person.
If you want to study that somehow fine, but that seems more
a topic in something like psychology than pure logic. If I'm
correct in thinking that in the system you have in mind
the _definition_ of correct reasoning is going to vary
from person to person that seems even less like "logic".
</quote>

For 2 years I've tried in various posts/threads to follow his suggestion:

- I've pointed out the relativity nature of current FOL reasoning
is upon us all. I'd be for us all - not just me alone - to see it
as it is so *we'd all* feel happy to make appropriate adjustment
to this obsolete post Godel reasoning foundation.

- I've pointed out that there can't be global "_correct_ reasoning" that
*all reasoning beings could possibly know!

- I've pointed out some suggestion how a new framework could be achieved:
in a nut-shell:

*) through formally recognizing certain limitation of "knowing"
in some new (suggested) un-knownability principles. [One could
see the section "A working perspective" from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundational_crisis_of_mathematics

for certain similarity of the "un-knownability principles" I've alluded
to above.

- I've similarly discussed many issues related to the above.

But to be honest, for the past 2 years, many times I feel like I happened to
enter a time machine going to Euclid's time where all the "professionals"
would only care to utter one "intrinsic" truth: "The 5th postulate is
'absolutely' true'"!

Of all the "science" fields, mathematical reasoning is supposed to be a field
where we should keep up the motto: keep an open mind! It's kind of sad here
in this forum most of the time we'd rather like to engage in a "fight" than
in an open-mined scrutiny on mistakes of the past!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Perl issue
    ... Can you please explain the reasoning behind your suggestion? ... special in a double-quotish string (the sprintf family of functions ... Back-slashing it has no effect: ...
    (perl.beginners)
  • Re: Save File Recognition
    ... Nethack, but I don't like that approach. ... Ah yes...the obvious line of reasoning. ... Funny that it didn't occur to ... Thanks for the suggestion. ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.development)
  • Re: OT: VP Question
    ... My "reasoning" behind the suggestion that they could win in the first place is that ... vote considers that last sentence reasoning. ... inside the time frame to allow her to run two full terms on her own. ... start grooming Chelsea for the job. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Search without keywords?
    ... Your suggestion of does return ALL items, ... I don't know his reasoning, but I would like to know everything that ... I don't think you guys are capable of tackling the amount of ...
    (alt.marketing.online.ebay)
  • Understanding Kant
    ... for one thing, yes, it's worth it for that, just as it was for Kant when he ... strictly by process of pure reasoning. ... selecting of what works logically and keeping that in mind over against the ... With the *synthetical judgment a priori*, the same form of intuition is ...
    (rec.arts.books)