Re: (OPE-L) Re: The Church-Turing thesis

From: Christopher Arthur (cjarthur@WAITROSE.COM)
Date: Thu Jan 22 2004 - 08:22:21 EST

A postscript,
having briefly scanned the Kosok paper again I see he derives Godel's
theorem within his dialectic but does not regard it as some sort of paradox
or limit but inherent to the essentially open-ended process of
>Hi Andy. I agree. Dialectic is a logic of content e.g. categories. This
>does not mean that the moves typically made cannot be formalised. This has
>been done by Kosok in the paper reprinted in *Hegel* ed. A Macintyre.
>However it will not 'run' on a computer because to insert a real content
>into the symbols leaves the 'solution' undetermined. As Hegel says
>somewhere the transition involves 'an upward spring of the mind'.
>Chris A
>>> I'll claim that any theory of a dialectical logic worth
>>> > its salt should be able to be formalized and implemented on a
>>> > computer.
>>Sorry not to have looked in more detail at this interesting thread but
>>the above remark caught my eye.
>>I would have thought that dialectical logic is precisely a sublation of
>>formal logic which means that it can never be 'formalised': it cannot
>>be captured in a formal system. The failure of logicism, the
>>reduction of maths to logic, (a failure I take Godel to have proved)
>>can be viewed in this light. But Ian is the expert re Godel and all
>>that...Ian I am forever interested to hear more of your view on this
>17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England

17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 23 2004 - 00:00:01 EST