[FOM] Diagonalization Does Not Deliver Self-Reference
praatika at mappi.helsinki.fi
Fri Dec 27 05:12:49 EST 2002
> However, as is obvious from quick consideration of the usual proofs of
> the diagonal lemma, A is not a biconditional. It therefore has no rhs,
> and since such syntactic facts are provable, A itself is refutable. The
> case is, obviously, similar with (2).
> The reason we fail to formalize (1) and (2) using diagonalization is
> that diagonalization does not produce a self-referential sentence.
I have not really thought this through properly, but the following occured
to me: I wonder whether Vann McGee's trick which provides, for any
sentence, a T-biconditional equivalent with the sentence, would help?
PhD., Docent in Theoretical Philosophy
Fellow, Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies
University of Helsinki
E-mail: panu.raatikainen at helsinki.fi
More information about the FOM