Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!botter!klipper!biep
From: biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Uncertainty in life
Message-ID: <768@klipper.cs.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 26-May-87 03:36:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: klipper.768
Posted: Tue May 26 03:36:33 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 27-May-87 01:05:32 EDT
References: <6762@mimsy.UUCP> <3977@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>
Reply-To: biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux)
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 25
Keywords: Heisenberg certain

In article <3977@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>,
ma188saa@sdcc3.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Steve Bloch) writes:
>Sorry; I'm falling into Russell-and-Whitehead, who avoided
>self-referential statements by making them inadmissible in the same
>way that I'm making Goedel inadmissible.

How can that be done?

"Any self-referring statement is inadmissible!"

Now, is that statement self-referring? Don't you need an appropriate
variant of Loeb's theorem ("any sentence which would be self-referring
if it were self-referring is self-referring") or its negation to decide
on that? And then: is this Loeb-variant self-referring? According to LV
(the Loeb-variant) itself, yes, but then ...

[Thanks, Ob(noxio), for introducing me to another subtlety of
self-reference - is uncle Doug (Hofstadter) on the net?]

So the main question remains: how can a non-decidable class of objects
be labeled inadmissible?
-- 
						Biep.  (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax)
	"Law" is the name given to a collection of rules describing
	how to act with people that do not follow the law.