David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophia Mathematica 2 (3):177-201 (1994)
In this paper I argue that it is more difficult to see how Godel's incompleteness theorems and related consistency proofs for formal systems are consistent with the views of formalists, mechanists and traditional intuitionists than it is to see how they are consistent with a particular form of mathematical realism. If the incompleteness theorems and consistency proofs are better explained by this form of realism then we can also see how there is room for skepticism about Church's Thesis and the claim that minds are machines.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Robert F. Hadley (2008). Consistency, Turing Computability and Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem. Minds and Machines 18 (1):1-15.
Carlo Cellucci (1993). From Closed to Open Systems. In J. Czermak (ed.), Philosophy of Mathematics, pp. 206-220. Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.
Peter Smith (2013). An Introduction to Gödel's Theorems. Cambridge University Press.
Harvey Friedman, Contemporary Perspectives on Hilbert's Second Problem and the Gödel Incompleteness Theorems.
Raymond M. Smullyan (1992). Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. Oxford University Press.
Roman Murawski (1997). Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems and Computer Science. Foundations of Science 2 (1):123-135.
Panu Raatikainen (2005). On the Philosophical Relevance of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 59 (4):513-534.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads35 ( #40,823 of 1,013,568 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,884 of 1,013,568 )
How can I increase my downloads?