FOM: Goedel: truth and misinterpretations

Torkel Franzen torkel at
Wed Nov 8 02:23:30 EST 2000

V.Sazonov says, with reference to
    (1) Even if ZFC is in fact consistent, it seems that most likely
        no argument proving this to everybody's satisfaction will
        ever be found.

   >Will you confirm, please, that we both understand this (1) 
   >(which is strongly different from the former (1) about TRUTH) 
   >in the same "physical" way, as I explained above.

  Naturally, if ZFC is consistent, no inconsistency will in fact be
found. But the statement "ZFC is consistent" in (1) is not a statement
about any physical events or possibilities, but is the mathematical
statement that no inconsistency exists. Such a use of mathematical
statements is, as we know, unacceptable from a strongly antirealistic
point of view, such as expounded by you or by Wittgenstein. If you're
interested in any further exposition of this from my point of view, I
suggest that you look at my "Provability and truth", which is
available online.


  Torkel Franzen

More information about the FOM mailing list