FOM: Goedel: truth and misinterpretations

[Torkel Franzen]

V.Sazonov says, with reference to
 
    (1) Even if ZFC is in fact consistent, it seems that most likely
        no argument proving this to everybody's satisfaction will
        ever be found.

   >Will you confirm, please, that we both understand this (1) 
   >(which is strongly different from the former (1) about TRUTH) 
   >in the same "physical" way, as I explained above.

  Naturally, if ZFC is consistent, no inconsistency will in fact be
found. But the statement "ZFC is consistent" in (1) is not a statement
about any physical events or possibilities, but is the mathematical
statement that no inconsistency exists. Such a use of mathematical
statements is, as we know, unacceptable from a strongly antirealistic
point of view, such as expounded by you or by Wittgenstein. If you're
interested in any further exposition of this from my point of view, I
suggest that you look at my "Provability and truth", which is
available online.

---

  Torkel Franzen