Describing the unspeakable and demonstrating the unprovable
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
of (from British Columbia Philosophy Graduate Conference) Despite the apparent polarity between the philosophies of Wittgenstein and G�del, I here seek to demonstrate and consider important similarities in these two allegedly disparate interpretations of mathematical proposition. Wittgenstein asserts that the meaning is comprised by proof, while G�del relegates provability to an intrinsically imperfect status. Each represents metamathematical statements as severely limited, and analysis emphasizing the complementary here yields a rich interpretation of mathematical proposition: invention, but not without a basis for describing these inventions as incomplete. As contrivances that exhibit a necessarily imperfect correlation to hypothetical completeness, the extent to which any one system is comparatively useful is thus a reflection of the degree of imperfection with which it correlates to the otherwise inarticulable qualities that dictate usefulness. Inconsistency produced by our necessarily incomplete systems should therefore be viewed as a natural consequence of the inherent imperfect correlation, and so admits of meaningful interpretation.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(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
Peter Alexander (1963). Sensationalism And Scientific Explanation. Humanities Press.
Peter Smith (2008). Ancestral Arithmetic and Isaacson's Thesis. Analysis 68 (297):1–10.
Yingxu Wang (2003). Using Process Algebra to Describe Human and Software Behaviors. Brain and Mind 4 (2):199-213.
Mike Lukich (2002). “Non-Natural” Qualities in G.E. Moore: Inherent or Contingent? Philosophical Studies 108 (1-2):15 - 21.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1989). Can There Be a Proof That an Unprovable Sentence of Arithmetic is True? Dialectica 43 (43):289-292.
John R. Lucas (1961). Minds, Machines and Godel. Philosophy 36 (April-July):112-127.
G. Longo (2011). Reflections on Concrete Incompleteness. Philosophia Mathematica 19 (3):255-280.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #336,698 of 1,907,067 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #468,221 of 1,907,067 )
How can I increase my downloads?