[FOM] The Gold Standard
Arnon Avron
aa at tau.ac.il
Mon Feb 20 17:58:55 EST 2006
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 05:47:26PM -0500, Harvey Friedman wrote:
> On 2/19/06 10:43 AM, "Arnon Avron" <aa at tau.ac.il> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 02:01:50AM -0500, Harvey Friedman wrote:
> >
> >> ZFC + large large cardinals. Justification:
> >> "inconsistencies should be easy
> >> and not take long to find, like Kunen's for ZFC + j:V into V, and this
> >> hasn't happened yet over a 'long' period of time", and "go for it!"
> >
> > Great. So from now on I recommend to accept and use NF.
>> Justification: "inconsistencies should be easy
> > and not take long to find, like Kunen's for ZFC + j:V into V,
>> and this > > hasn't happened yet over a 'long' period of time",
>> and "go for it!"
> >
> Just yet another argument against just one of the natural stopping
> places in the natural hierarchy (the level which essentially
> represents not stopping).
Sorry. I was not giving any argument against anything. I was only
drawing the logical conclusions of what you have written.
According to what I understand about logic, if someone brings
some argument as the justification of A, and the same argument
applied word by word to B, than the same person (if he is a logican)
necessarily sees A and B as equally justified. Note that *I* did not
say whether I find NF justified or not (after all, we dont know nearly
enough about FOM to tell!). What is clear is that
in your posting *you* found it necessary to add some arguments
to distiguish between the cases of NF and ZFC + j:V into V.
This *logically* means that *you* don't
find your own justification of ZFC + j:V into V
as sufficient. Do you have a better one? (I hope it is not going
to be: the original justification augmented with the thesis that
there are no good reasons to reject ZFC + j:V into V, while
there are such reasons for any other system to which
the original justification applies, but you don't like them).
Arnon Avron
More information about the FOM
mailing list