From: Psy Kosh (psykosh@gmail.com)
Date: Fri May 26 2006 - 14:56:41 MDT
>
> "Consistency" in the Godelian sense means that the formal system never
> proves both P and ~P.
>
> Here we mean "consistency" simply in the sense of rationalists who make
> a choice expecting similar rationalists to make the same choice, whether
> or not that choice is correct.
>
Well, yes. But doesn't that neccessitate formal consistancy? ie, The
fundumental assumption of superrationality seems to be if A is
rational, and B is rational, and both A and B are starting with the
same assumptions, etc, and A comes to conclusion P, then B will
definately also come to conclusion P, instead of coming to conclusion
~P. So that fundumental assumption _looks like_, to me at least, to be
equivalent to an axiom stating "if P is provable, ~P is not provable."
Sorry if I was unclear earlier.
Psy-Kosh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT