Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site teddy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!teddy!rmc
From: rmc@teddy.UUCP (R. Mark Chilenskas)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Now and Then
Message-ID: <403@teddy.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Sep-84 17:33:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: teddy.403
Posted: Mon Sep 10 17:33:25 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Sep-84 09:04:09 EDT
References: <13179@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: GenRad, Concord, Mass.
Lines: 25

nduction.

The proof is valid if the accepted community of experts agrees that the
proof is valid (see for example various Wittgenstein and Putname essays
on the foundations of mathematics and logic).  The experts could be
wrong for a variety of reasons.  Natural law could change.  The
argument may be so complicated that everyone gets lost and misses a
mistake (this has even happened before!)  The class of cases may be
poorly chosen.  etc.

	The disagreement seems to be centered around a question of
whether this community of experts accepts causality as part of the
model.  If it is, then we can use causality as an axiom in our proof
systems.  But it still boils down to what the experts accept.

					R Mark Chilenskas
					decvax!genrad!teddy!rmc