normal
forum

Home Forums The Science Equivalence, inconsistency and incompleteness

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Dr. Wintermute 2 months, 2 weeks ago.

  • Author
    Posts

  • Dr. Wintermute
    Participant

    GOEDEL’S CRITIQUE OF THE BEGINNING OF HEGELIAN LOGIC AND THE MEANING OF EQUIVALENCE, INCONSISTENCY AN INCOMPLETENESS

    G.W. Leibnitz based his whole philosophy and mathematics on the two Laws of Non-Contradiction
    and Sufficient Reason. This essay investigates if this approach is still a realistic perspective.

    It is quite intuitive to think that, on the one hand, formal or material inconcistency disqualifies a theory, and on the other hand, that every theoretical proposition you make should be justified with sufficient reason. Note that it is no paradox to not demand sufficient reason for everything; but it seems perfectly legitimate to do so. According to Karl Popper, discovering formal and material inconsistencies in other theories can’t establish a new theory. However, the following problem then arises: What is the sufficient reason for the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Sufficient reason? Both wanting and not wanting a sufficient reason for sufficient reason is paradox; thus establishing it demands abandoning the Law of Contradiction. But paradox is the sufficient reason for anything (i.E: Ex contradictione sequitur quod libet) ().

    SOURCE: http://analytischesozialkritik.blogsport.eu/files/2017/12/goedels-critique-of-the-beginning-of-hegels-logic-2.pdf