Re: what makes it true?

grubb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Daniel Grubb) writes:

> Like I said, I can follow the rules of the system without having a set
> theory. However, to prove anything about the system, such as
> consistency, I have to be able to talk about the set of statements
> in the theory, so I need a set theory. To be able to talk about the set
> of provable statements, I'll need to actually talk about sets. To talk
> about truth in the theory, I need to talk about models of the theory.
> Since a model is a set, that requires a set theory. To ask whether
> a statement is independent from the theory, I need to be able to talk
> about whether it is in the set of provable statements from the theory.
> I don't see any way around it.

I see, and this is how you learned to understand "and so on"?

.