You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

vi21maobk9vp comments on Re: Second-Order Logic: The Controversy - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: abramdemski 05 January 2013 10:33AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (7)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: vi21maobk9vp 06 January 2013 02:56:23PM 1 point [-]

Could you please clarify your question here?

Why, as you come to believe that Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory has a model, do you come to believe that physical time will never show you a moment when a machine checking for ZF-inconsistency proofs halts?

I try to intepret it (granted, I interpret it in my worldview which is different) and I cannot see the question here.

I am not 100% sure whether even PA has a model, but I find it likely that even ZFC has. But if I say that ZFC has a model, it means that this is a model where formula parts are numbered by the natural numbers derived from my notion of subsequent moments of time.