All you ever wanted to know about G¶del

This is not an easy read for philosophical amateurs like myself, but its a good one. “G¶del and the nature of mathematical truth”. Ends with a bit of a bang too.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
8 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nicholas Gruen
2022 years ago

Correction, the article is pretty easy to read – it’s an interview so it can’t be too hard. Godel’s proof is however explained (I guess they’d say ‘motivated’ in a maths class) and that takes a bit of concentration. But its a great article – I reckon.

meika
2022 years ago

i’ve read it a couple a months ago, I guess I must be one of the jazzier ones, of course, just because you discover something (lets call it ‘x’) doesn’t mean your biases/preference in a bounded ir/rational world will be right everywhere (x-aleph).

Even g

meika
2022 years ago

its in her genes, she can’t help it

Gummo Trotsky
2022 years ago

Here’s a follow-up interview, also at Edge, also on Godel:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/vhd05/vhd05_index.html

Gummo Trotsky
2022 years ago

Sorry, it’s not an interview. It’s a hatchet job – but a first rate one for all that.

meika
2022 years ago

thanks gummo

john r walker
john r walker(@annesanders)
8 years ago
Reply to  meika

Both interviews are wonderfully clear.
A favorite bit of Hofstadter

Moreover, Gödel’s construction revealed in a crystal-clear way that the line between “direct” and “indirect” self-reference (indeed, between direct and indirect reference, and that’s even more important!) is completely blurry, because his construction pinpoints the essential role played by isomorphism (another name for coding) in the establishment of reference and meaning. Gödel’s work is, to me, the most beautiful possible demonstration of how meaning emerges from and only from isomorphism, and of how any notion of “direct” meaning (i.e., codeless meaning) is incoherent. In brief, it shows that semantics is an emergent quality of complex syntax, which harks back to my earlier remark in the Post Scriptum to Chapter 1, namely: “Content is fancy form.”