Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!hao!husc6!ut-sally!turpin
From: turpin@ut-sally.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Uncertainty in life
Message-ID: <8135@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-May-87 09:37:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.8135
Posted: Tue May 26 09:37:17 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 27-May-87 03:28:28 EDT
References: <6762@mimsy.UUCP> <3977@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 18
Keywords: Heisenberg certain
Summary: Poor Godel, so often maligned.

In article <3977@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, ma188saa@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Steve Bloch) writes:

> I just thought of something: a consistent logician cannot believe
> in its own consistency IF IT HAS READ GOEDEL.  

Think again. (Perhaps after studying a logic text.)

Godel's *incompleteness* theorems simply say that your
hypothetical logician, if consistent, might come across
unprovable statements. In the first order predicate calculus, for
example, there are fully quantified statements that can neither
be proven or disproven. Such a statement, or its denial, can be
as an axiom to the system, which remains consistent thereby.

Godel is second only to Einstein in having pseudophilosophical
claptrap "based" on his work. Poor Godel.

Russell