The Prof has asked me to briefly introduce to the post-grads the
significance of Godel's incompleteness theorem to logic, notions of
determinism and free-will, and to other pertinent issues in philosophy.
This might include a discussion on the significance of proof itself.

What would you say to them on this topic? A few are analytic
philosophers, but most are, I think, continentalists, though this
shouldn't matter as Godel seems to be branching everywhere. These guys
aren't stupid though ..

On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
The Prof has asked me to briefly introduce to the post-grads the
significance of Godel's incompleteness theorem to logic, notions of
determinism and free-will, and to other pertinent issues in
philosophy. This might include a discussion on the significance of
proof itself.

What would you say to them on this topic? A few are analytic
philosophers, but most are, I think, continentalists, though this
shouldn't matter as Godel seems to be branching everywhere. These
guys aren't stupid though ..

Why in the world would you presume (other than your prof's clearly
deranged recommendation) to discuss Godel's incompleteness theorem at
a post-graduate level when you know virtually zilch about basic logic
at a freshman level?

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:18:14 -0700 (PDT), MoeBlee <jazzm... at (no spam) hotmail.com
said:





On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
The Prof has asked me to briefly introduce to the post-grads the
significance of Godel's incompleteness theorem to logic, notions of
determinism and free-will, and to other pertinent issues in
philosophy.  This might include a discussion on the significance of
proof itself.

What would you say to them on this topic? A few are analytic
philosophers, but most are, I think, continentalists, though this
shouldn't matter as Godel seems to be branching everywhere. These
guys aren't stupid though ..

Why in the world would you presume (other than your prof's clearly
deranged recommendation) to discuss Godel's incompleteness theorem at
a post-graduate level when you know virtually zilch about basic logic
at a freshman level?

Wait, now, there's plenty of great stuff he can find about Gödel's
theorem on the internet that he can share with his fellow Seekers:

* Minds are not machines
* Determinism is false (follows from previous)
* There are unprovable truths
* Gödel's theorem is actually unknowable because it involves self-reference
* All knowledge is self-referential
* The universe is ultimately unknowable (follows from previous)
* Morality is relative.

That'll get him started.  Knock 'em dead, JJ!

ps: Oh, wait, that last one follows from Einstein, sorry.

The Prof has asked me to briefly introduce to the post-grads the
significance of Godel's incompleteness theorem to logic, notions of
determinism and free-will, and to other pertinent issues in philosophy.
This might include a discussion on the significance of proof itself.

What would you say to them on this topic? A few are analytic
philosophers, but most are, I think, continentalists, though this
shouldn't matter as Godel seems to be branching everywhere. These guys
aren't stupid though ..

The Prof has asked me to briefly introduce to the post-grads the
significance of Godel's incompleteness theorem to logic, notions of
determinism and free-will, and to other pertinent issues in philosophy.
This might include a discussion on the significance of proof itself.

What would you say to them on this topic?

A few are analytic philosophers, but most are, I think,
continentalists, though this shouldn't matter as Godel seems to be
branching everywhere. These guys aren't stupid though ..

The Prof has asked me to briefly introduce to the post-grads the
significance of Godel's incompleteness theorem to logic, notions of
determinism and free-will, and to other pertinent issues in philosophy.
This might include a discussion on the significance of proof itself.

What would you say to them on this topic? A few are analytic
philosophers, but most are, I think, continentalists, though this
shouldn't matter as Godel seems to be branching everywhere. These guys
aren't stupid though ..

John Jones schrieb:

Godel and Turin were both troubled with their theories. Both authors
were more concerned about the status of human thought or the mind which
their theories or ideas offered, ather than the theories themselves. I'm
surprised you didn't know that.

And turing was homosexual and troubled,
thats why he lost his g, and became turin.

The Prof has asked me to briefly introduce to the post-grads the
significance of Godel's incompleteness theorem to logic, notions of
determinism and free-will, and to other pertinent issues in philosophy.
This might include a discussion on the significance of proof itself.

What would you say to them on this topic? A few are analytic
philosophers, but most are, I think, continentalists, though this
shouldn't matter as Godel seems to be branching everywhere. These guys
aren't stupid though ..

John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) aol.com> writes:

The Prof has asked me to briefly introduce to the post-grads the
significance of Godel's incompleteness theorem to logic, notions of
determinism and free-will, and to other pertinent issues in philosophy.
This might include a discussion on the significance of proof itself.

What would you say to them on this topic?

Goedel's theorem is a technical result within mathematical logic,
with no significance elsewhere.

In particular, it has zero significance with respect to notions of
determinism and free will.

Neil W Rickert wrote:
John Jones <jonescardiff at (no spam) aol.com> writes:

The Prof has asked me to briefly introduce to the post-grads the
significance of Godel's incompleteness theorem to logic, notions of
determinism and free-will, and to other pertinent issues in
philosophy. This might include a discussion on the significance of
proof itself.

What would you say to them on this topic?

Goedel's theorem is a technical result within mathematical logic,
with no significance elsewhere.

Perhaps so. But it's interesting to note that a mathematical logic
technical result would have "no significance elsewhere", given the
importance of mathematics elsewhere!

In particular, it has zero significance with respect to notions of
determinism and free will.

That of course isn't true. The notion of "determinism" is vested in
syntactical provability, and "free will" in the concept of the natural
numbers!

Neil W Rickert wrote:

Goedel's theorem is a technical result within mathematical logic,
with no significance elsewhere.

Perhaps so. But it's interesting to note that a mathematical logic
technical result would have "no significance elsewhere", given the
importance of mathematics elsewhere!

In particular, it has zero significance with respect to notions of
determinism and free will.

That of course isn't true. The notion of "determinism" is vested in
syntactical provability, and "free will" in the concept of the natural
numbers!

Neil W Rickert wrote:

That of course isn't true. The notion of "determinism" is vested in
syntactical provability, and "free will" in the concept of the natural
numbers!

"Nam D. Nguyen" <namducnguyen at (no spam) shaw.ca> writes:
Neil W Rickert wrote:

Goedel's theorem is a technical result within mathematical logic,
with no significance elsewhere.

Perhaps so. But it's interesting to note that a mathematical logic
technical result would have "no significance elsewhere", given the
importance of mathematics elsewhere!

You are making a generalizationn to all technical results within
mathematical logic. However there is nothing in what I said that
would license such a generalization.

In particular, it has zero significance with respect to notions of
determinism and free will.

That of course isn't true. The notion of "determinism" is vested in
syntactical provability, and "free will" in the concept of the natural
numbers!

I believe the original author was referring to the philosophical
concepts of "free will" and "determinism", and not to determinism
within formal systems.

On Jun 13, 8:04 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
The Prof has asked me to briefly introduce to the post-grads the
significance of Godel's incompleteness theorem to logic, notions of
determinism and free-will, and to other pertinent issues in philosophy.
This might include a discussion on the significance of proof itself.

What would you say to them on this topic? A few are analytic
philosophers, but most are, I think, continentalists, though this
shouldn't matter as Godel seems to be branching everywhere. These guys
aren't stupid though ..

Maybe he wants you to sing Boolos article of godels theorem in words
of one syllable.
It doesn't rhyme but you can do it in stacatto.

with many preformers in harmony and every next preformer starting
after the previous preformer says "proved" or "prove" it will make a
nice preformance. (but you do need a lot of preformers, (38)

(It is in Boolos Logic logic logic, Have also a look at the other
articles maybe you can learn something from it)
But probably it is better to start with Pospesels "propositional
logic"

Or if your harmony isn't all to good you can rap it.
It is all short words so it is likely that it is posible.
(I am not a rap fan)

But please don't try to explain it if you don't understand it
yourself. or disagree with it.

Greetings