Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology providing situational context.

On 22/03/2025 00:01, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/21/25 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:

<snip>

>
Or we could simply define the rules for constructing a
formal system such that inconsistency cannot exist.
>

 You could try, but it can't be done and allow for any reasonable level of power in the logic. You basically need to have a system that can only prove a finite number of facts, so you can check that none of them are inconsistant.

Hofstadter's GEB provides an excellent analogy of this in Contracrostipunctus, where Tortoise puts Crab's record player to the test:
"[Crab] had just bought his first record player, and being somewhat gullible, believed every word the salesman had told him about it-in particular, that it was capable of reproducing any and all sounds. In short, he was convinced that it was a Perfect phonograph."
Those who know the book will recall the argument. (And those who don't should buy a copy.)
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within