Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Yet Another Spurious Proof Message-ID: <781@mmintl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Nov-85 19:18:41 EST Article-I.D.: mmintl.781 Posted: Thu Nov 7 19:18:41 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 15:30:01 EST References: <1790@watdcsu.UUCP> <2004@umcp-cs.UUCP> <2030@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Lines: 18 Summary: A completely spurious proof In article <2030@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >I think this just shows to go you that you don't understand the proof. [That there is a true statement which God cannot recognize as true.] >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? This kind of sentence, including that used in the orginal "proof", are self- referential. If self-referential statements are allowed, you can prove anything and everything. In general, self-referential sentences cannot be regarded as statements (i.e., as things which are true or false). So the entire "proof" collapses. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108