5 ms·
This argument is a classic example of the vicious circle principle [1]. The self-referential nature of this interesting argument makes it somewhat meaningless (
by maxfan8 7y ago
This argument is a classic example of the vicious circle principle [1]. The self-referential nature of this interesting argument makes it somewhat meaningless (from a logical perspective).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicious_circle_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicious_circle_principle
- cryptonector 7y ago> The self-referential nature of this interesting argument Self-referential symbolic statements are at the core of Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
- hanche 7y agoYes, but that self-reference happens outside the formal language, not within it. Gödel encoded formal statements in the language as integers, and thus turned the question of provability into statements of arithmetic. If the formal system is powerful enough to let you reason about arithmetic, you can thus trick the system to be self-referential, but only via this mechanism external to the system itself.
- psychoslave 7y agoThe thing is, as far as we have to deal with in the real world, there is nothing such as an absolutely isolated system. To my mind, self-reference only occurs in an interpretation, thus in the frame of some actions, which are only possible in a world where changes happen, most likely changing the frame of interpretation itself.
- psychoslave 7y agoWhich argument are your referring to? Do you mean the Münchhausen Trilemma or the comment to which you replied?
- maxfan8 7y agoI was referring to the comment to which I replied, not the trilemma.