Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!scherzo!allegra!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Yet Another Spurious Proof
Message-ID: <2030@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 00:53:50 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.2030
Posted: Mon Nov  4 00:53:50 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 07:08:50 EST
References: <1790@watdcsu.UUCP> <2004@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 35

>>The following constitutes a proof that for some random arbitrary person,
>>"Tom", there is at least one true statement that Tom doesn't know --
>>in fact *can't* know.  I've borrowed it from an article posted by
>>lambert@boring.

> I've removed the argument to the end, and heavily edited it to shorten it.
> The gist of it is that one sets up a statement about whether a function of
> that statement can be recognized as true by a person X.  The statement is
> constructed so that supposedly the person can erroneously recognize it as
> true, or if it is true, he can recognize it as true (since to do so would
> contradict the statement.  David Canzi then makes the following claim:
> 
>>Now, this proof that there is at least one true statement that Tom doesn't
>>know still works if we substitute the word "God" for "Tom".  So much for
>>omniscience.
> 
> Unfortunately, this argument is totally bogus when applied to God, possibly
> for multiple reasons.  Let us postulate that God has some sort of facility
> which erroneously recognizes false statements as true (a function which has
> some obvious utility).  We therefore have God's mind recognizing the
> statement as true.  [WINGATE]

I think this just shows to go you that you don't understand the proof.
A simplification of such an example is the statement "You will say that
this statement is false."  If I ask you if this is true, what will your answer
be?  There can be no answer to this that YOU can give that would be correct.
The same thing applies to god.  But note that this "some sort of facility"
exists in a sense, and is nothing unique to god.  After all, you just
figured out that you couldn't give a correct answer to that question put to
you.  Didn't you?
-- 
"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day
 to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human
 being can fight and never stop fighting."  - e. e. cummings
	Rich Rosen	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr