David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Let me start with a disclaimer. I am not going to be primarily concerned with the Gödelian argument against mechanism, although that is what I am primarily associated with in the public mind. Not that I don't stand by it. Although there have been many criticisms, some of them ill informed and evidently based on not having read what I had actually written, the critics had a strong tendency to disagree with one another more than they did with me, or later with Roger Penrose. At first I tried to answer critical arguments, but became somewhat bored with having to make the same points over and over again. I often wondered what Gödel himself thought, having a strong sense of his being in sympathy with my general line of argument. In fact he had expressed his views in a lecture on Boxing Day, 1951, which was finally published in the third volume of his Collected Works in 1995. Gödel argues for a disjunction: an Either/Or, with the strong suggestion that the second disjunct is untenable, and hence by Modus Tollendo Ponens that the first disjunct must be true.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Panu Raatikainen (2005). On the Philosophical Relevance of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 59 (4):513-534.
John Lucas (2003). The Gödelian Argument: Turn Over the Page. Etica E Politica 5 (1):1.
J. Lucas (2003). The Implications of Gödel Theorem. Etica E Politica 5 (1):1.
Panu Raatikainen (2002). McCall's Gödelian Argument is Invalid. Facta Philosophica 4 (1):167-69.
William Seager (2003). Yesterday's Algorithm. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (3):265-273.
Mark Steiner (2001). Wittgenstein as His Own Worst Enemy: The Case of Gödel's Theorem. Philosophia Mathematica 9 (3):257-279.
William Tait (2001). Godel's Unpublished Papers on Foundations of Mathematics. Philosophia Mathematica 9 (1):87-126.
William E. Seager (2003). Yesterday's Algorithm: Penrose and the Godel Argument. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (9):265-273.
William H. Hanson (1971). Mechanism and Godel's Theorem. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22 (February):9-16.
Juliet Floyd (2001). Prose Versus Proof: Wittgenstein on Gödel, Tarski and Truth. Philosophia Mathematica 9 (3):280-307.
A. W. Moore (1998). More on 'The Philosophical Significance of Gödel's Theorem'. Grazer Philosophische Studien 55:103-126.
G. Sereny (2011). How Do We Know That the Godel Sentence of a Consistent Theory Is True? Philosophia Mathematica 19 (1):47-73.
Yi-Zhuang Chen (2004). Edgar Morin's Paradigm of Complexity and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. World Futures 60 (5 & 6):421 – 431.
David Coder (1969). Godel's Theorem and Mechanism. Philosophy 44 (September):234-7.
Matthias Baaz (ed.) (2011). Kurt Gödel and the Foundations of Mathematics: Horizons of Truth. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads17 ( #205,063 of 1,790,533 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #433,815 of 1,790,533 )
How can I increase my downloads?