> own meta-language and do valid reasoning in it.
Julian:
> This is incompatible with the definition of what a meta-language is,
'THE definition'? Please provide a reference to the definition you're
using.
If a language can't be its own meta-langauge, what language are we using =
in
this discussion? I was under the impression we were using English to tal=
k
about what sort of things can be said in English.
Me:
> That's precisely how you get to Godel's Theorem.
Julian:
> (A theorem I myself fail to accept.
> Meaning is a transcendental experience using language.
> That's not what my however is about though) :
The proof of Godel's theorem is constructive. It provides a simple
mechanical procedure, by which any claimed solution to certain problems c=
an
be shown to be self-contradictory. It does not depend on any belief you
may have about the meaning of meaning. I'm afraid it's like the law of
gravity, you can refuse to accept it all you like, you're still bound by
it.
Andrew
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail