You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Turing machine’ tag.

(*Notations, non-standard concepts, and definitions used commonly in these investigations are detailed in this post.*)

In this post I address two critical issues, as raised in private correspondence with researchers, which may illuminate some objections to Gödel’s reasoning and conclusions that have been raised elsewhere by Wittgenstein, Floyd, Putnam et al.:

(i) By Rosser’s reasoning, doesn’t simple consistency suffice for defining an undecidable arithmetical proposition?

(ii) Doesn’t Gödel’s undecidable formula assert its own unprovability?

NOTE: The following correspondence refers copiously to *this paper* that was *presented* in June 2015 at the workshop on *Hilbert’s Epsilon and Tau in Logic, Informatics and Linguistics*, University of Montpellier, France.

Subsequently, most of the cited results were detailed formally in *the following paper* due to appear in the December 2016 issue of ‘*Cognitive Systems Research*‘:

**A: Doesn’t simple consistency suffice for defining Rosser’s undecidable arithmetical proposition?**

“*You claim that the PA system is -inconsistent, and that Gödel’s first theorem holds vacuously. But by Rosser’s result, simple consistency suffices.*“

Well, it does seem surprising that Rosser’s claim—that his ‘undecidable’ proposition only assumes simple consistency—has not been addressed more extensively in the literature. Number-theoretic expositions of Rosser’s proof have generally remained either implicit or sketchy (see, for instance, *this post*).

Note that Rosser’s proposition and reasoning involve interpretation of an existential quantifier, whilst Gödel’s proposition and reasoning only involve interpretation of a universal quantifier.

The reason why Rosser’s claim is untenable is that—in order to interpret the existential quantifier as per Hilbert’s -calculus—Rosser’s argument needs to assume his Rule C (see Elliott Mendelson, *Introduction to Mathematical Logic*, 1964 ed., p.73), which implicitly implies that Gödel’s arithmetic P—in which Rosser’s argumentation is grounded—is -consistent .

See, for instance, *this analysis* of (a) *Wang’s* outline of Rosser’s argument on p.5, (b) *Beth’s outline* of Rosser’s argument on p.6, and (c) *Mendelson’s exposition* of Rosser’s argument in Section 4.2 on p.8.

Moreover, the assumption is foundationally fragile, because Rule C invalidly assumes that we can introduce an ‘unspecified’ formula denoting an ‘unspecified’ numeral into PA even if the formula has not been demonstrated to be algorithmically definable in terms of the alphabet of PA.

See Theorem 8.5 and following remarks in Section 8, pp.7-8 of *this paper* that was *presented* in June 2015 at the workshop on *Hilbert’s Epsilon and Tau in Logic, Informatics and Linguistics*, University of Montpellier, France.

**B: As I see it, rule C is only a shortcut.**

“*As I see it, rule C is only a shortcut; it is totally eliminable. Moreover, it is part of predicate logic, not of the Peano’s arithmetic.*“

Assuming that Rule C is a short cut which can always be eliminated is illusory, and is tantamount to invalidly (see Corollary 8.6, p.17 of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*) claiming that Hilbert’s calculus is a conservative extension of the first-order predicate calculus.

*Reason*: Application of Rule C invalidly (see Theorem 8.5 and following remarks in Section 8, pp.7-8 of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*) involves introduction of a new individual constant, say , in a first-order theory (see Mendelson 1964, p.74, I(iv)); ‘invalidly’ since Rule C does not qualify that must be algorithmically computable from the alphabet of —which is necessary if is first-order.

Notation: We use square brackets to indicate that the expression within the brackets denotes a well-formed formula of a formal system, say , that is to be viewed syntactically merely as a first-order string of —i.e, one which is finitarily constructed from the alphabet of the language of —without any reference to its meaning under any interpretation of .

Essentially, Rule C mirrors in the intuitionistically objectionable postulation that the formula of can always be interpreted as:

holds for some element

in the domain of the interpretation of under which the formula interprets as the relation .

*The Epsilon 2015 paper* shows that this is not a valid interpretation of the formula under any finitary, evidence-based, interpretation of .

That, incidentally, is a consequence of the proof that PA is not -consistent; which itself is a consequence of (Theorem 7.1, p.15, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*):

**Provability Theorem for PA**: A PA formula is provable if, and only if, interprets as an arithmetical relation that is algorithmically computable as always true (see Definition 3, p.7, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*) over the structure of the natural numbers.

Compare with what Gödel has essentially shown in his famous 1931 paper on formally undecidable arithmetical propositions, which is that (Lemma 8.1, p.16, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*):

**Gödel**: There is a PA formula —which Gödel refers to by its Gödel number —which is not provable in PA, even though interprets as an arithmetical relation that is algorithmically verifiable as always true (see Definition 4, p.7, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*) over the structure of the natural numbers.

**C: If you by-pass the intuitionist objections, would all logicist and post-formalist theories hold?**

“*If I have understood correctly, you claim that the PA system is -inconsistent from an intuitionistic point of view? If you by-pass the intuitionist objections, would all logicist and post-formalist theories hold?*“

There is nothing to bypass—the first-order Peano Arithmetic PA is a formal axiomatic system which is -inconsistent as much for an intuitionist, as it is for a realist, a finitist, a formalist, a logicist or a nominalist.

Philosophers may differ about beliefs that are essentially unverifiable; but the -incompleteness of PA is a verifiable logical meta-theorem that none of them would dispute.

**D: Isn’t Gödel’s undecidable formula —which Gödel refers to by its Gödel number —self-referential?**

*Isn’t Gödel’s undecidable formula —which Gödel refers to by its Gödel number —self-referential and covertly paradoxical?*

*According to Wittgenstein it interprets in any model as a sentence that is devoid of sense, or even meaning. I think a good reason for this is that the formula is simply syntactically wrongly formed: the provability of provability is not defined and can not be consistently defined.*

*What you propose may be correct, but for automation systems of deduction wouldn’t -inconsistency be much more problematic than undecidability? *

*How would you feel if a syntax rule is proposed, that formulas containing numerals are instantiations of open formulas that may not be part of the canonical language? Too daring, may be?*

Let me briefly respond to the interesting points that you have raised.

1. The -inconsistency of PA is a meta-theorem; it is a Corollary of the Provability Theorem of PA (Theorem 7.1, p.15, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*).

2. Gödel’s PA-formula is not an undecidable formula of PA. It is merely unprovable in PA.

3. Moreover, Gödel’s PA-formula is provable in PA, which is why the PA formula is not an undecidable formula of PA.

4. Gödel’s PA-formula is not self-referential.

5. Wittgenstein correctly believed—albeit purely on the basis of philosophical considerations unrelated to whether or not Gödel’s formal reasoning was correct—that Gödel was wrong in stating that the PA formula asserts its own unprovability in PA.

*Reason*: We have for Gödel’s primitive recursive relation that:

is true if, and only if, the PA formula is provable in PA.

However, in order to conclude that the PA formula asserts its own unprovability in PA, Gödel’s argument must further imply—which it does not—that:

is true (and so, by Gödel’s definition of , the PA formula is not provable in PA) if, and only if, the PA formula is provable in PA.

In other words, for the PA formula to assert its own unprovability in PA, Gödel must show—which his own argument shows is impossible, since the PA formula is not provable in PA—that:

The primitive recursive relation is algorithmically computable as always true if, and only if, the arithmetical relation is algorithmically computable as always true (where is the arithmetical interpretation of the PA formula over the structure of the natural numbers).

6. Hence, Gödel’s PA-formula is not covertly paradoxical.

7. **IF** Wittgenstein believed that the PA formula is empty of meaning and has no valid interpretation, then he was wrong, and—as Gödel justifiably believed—he could not have properly grasped Gödel’s formal reasoning that:

(i) ‘ is not -provable’ is a valid meta-theorem if PA is consistent, which means that:

‘If PA is consistent and we assume that the PA formula is provable in PA, then the PA formula must also be provable in PA; from which we may conclude that the PA formula is not provable in PA’

(ii) ‘ is not -provable’ is a valid meta-theorem ONLY if PA is -consistent, which means that:

‘If PA is -consistent and we assume that the PA formula is provable in PA, then the PA formula must also be provable in PA; from which we may conclude that the PA formula is not provable in PA’.

8. In fact the PA formula has the following TWO meaningful interpretations (the first of which is a true arithmetical meta-statement—since the PA formula is provable in PA for any PA-numeral —but the second is not—since the PA formula is not provable in PA):

(i) For any given natural number , there is an algorithm which will verify that each of the arithmetical meta-statements ‘ is true’, ‘ is true’, …, ‘ is true’ holds under the standard, algorithmically verifiable, interpretation of PA (see \S 5, p.11 of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*);

(ii) There is an algorithm which will verify that, for any given natural number , the arithmetical statement ‘ is true’ holds under the finitary, algorithmically computable, interpretation of PA (see \S 6, p.13 of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*).

9. **IF** Wittgenstein believed that the PA formula is not a well-defined PA formula, then he was wrong.

Gödel’s definition of the PA formula yields a well-formed formula in PA, and cannot be treated as ‘syntactically wrongly formed’.

10. The Provability Theorem for PA shows that both ‘proving something in PA’ and ‘proving that something is provable in PA’ are finitarily well-defined meta-mathematical concepts.

11. The Provability Theorem for PA implies that PA is complete with respect to the concepts of satisfaction, truth and provability definable in automated deduction systems, which can only define algorithmically computable truth.

12. The Provability Theorem for PA implies that PA is categorical, so you can introduce your proposed syntax rule ONLY if it leads to a conservative extension of PA.

13. Whether ‘daring’ or not, why would you want to introduce such a rule?

**E: Consider these two statements of yours …**

*Consider these two statements of yours:*

*“(iv): is the Gödel-number of the formula of PA” and*

*“D(4): Gödel’s PA-formula is not self-referential.”*

*If ‘‘ is the Gödel-number of the open formula in para (iv), and the second argument of the closed formula in para D(4) is ‘‘, then the second formula is obtained by instantiating the variable ‘‘ in the first with its own Gödel-number.*

*So how would you call, in one word, the relation between the entire formula (in D(4)) and its second argument?*

Para D(4) is an attempt to clarify precisely this point.

1. Apropos the first statement ‘(iv)’ cited by you:

From a pedantic perspective, the “relation between the entire formula (in D(4)) and its second argument” cannot be termed self-referential because the “second argument”, i.e., , is the Gödel-number of the PA formula , and not that of “the entire formula (in 4)”, i.e., of the formula itself (whose Gödel number is ).

Putting it crudely, is neither self-referential—nor circularly defined—because it is not defined in terms of , but in terms of .

2. Apropos the second statement ‘D(4)’ cited by you:

I would interpret:

Gödel’s PA-formula is self-referential

to mean, in this particular context, that—as Gödel wrongly claimed:

asserts its own unprovability in PA.

Now, if we were to accept the claim that is self-referential in the above sense, then (as various critics of Gödel’s reasoning have pointed out) we would have to conclude further that Gödel’s argument leads to the contradiction:

is true—and so, by Gödel’s definition of —the PA formula is not provable in PA—if, and only if, the PA formula is provable in PA.

However, in view of the Provability Theorem of PA (Theorem 7.1, p.15, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*), this contradiction would only follow if Gödel’s argument were to establish (which it does not) that:

The primitive recursive relation is algorithmically computable as always true if, and only if, the arithmetical interpretation of the PA formula is algorithmically computable as always true over the structure of the natural numbers.

The reason Gödel cannot claim to have established the above is that his argument only proves the much weaker meta-statement:

The arithmetical interpretation of the PA formula is algorithmically verifiable as always true over the structure of the natural numbers.

Ergo—contrary to Gödel’s claim— Gödel’s PA-formula is not self-referential (and so, even though Gödel’s claimed interpretation of what his own reasoning proves is wrong, there is no paradox in Gödel’s reasoning per se)!

**F: Is the PA system -inconsistent without remedy?**

*Is the PA system -inconsistent without remedy? Is it possible to introduce a new axiom or new rule which by-passes the problematic unprovable statements of the Gödel-Rosser Theorems?*

1. Please note that the first-order Peano Arithmetic PA is:

(i) consistent (Theorem 7.3, p.15, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*); which means that for any PA-formula , we cannot have that both and are Theorems of PA;

(ii) complete (Theorem 7.1, p.15, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*); which means that we cannot add an axiom to PA which is not a Theorem of PA without inviting inconsistency;

(iii) categorical (Theorem 7.2, p.15, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*); which means that if is an interpretation of PA over a structure , and is an interpretation of PA over a structure , then and are identical and denote the structure of the natural numbers defined by Dedekind’s axioms; and so PA has no model which contains an element that is not a natural number (see Footnote 54, p.16, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*).

2. What this means with respect to Gödel’s reasoning is that:

(i) PA has no undecidable propositions, which is why it is not -consistent (Corollary 8.4, p.16, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*);

(ii) The Gödel formula is not provable in PA; but it is algorithmically verifiable as true (Corollary 8.3, p.16, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*) under the algorithmically verifiable standard interpretation of PA (see Section 5, p.11, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*) over the structure of the natural numbers;

(iii) The Gödel formula is not provable in PA; and it is algorithmically computable as false (Corollary 8.3, p.16, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*) under the algorithmically computable finitary interpretation of PA (see Section 6, p.13, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*) over the structure of the natural numbers;

(iv) The Gödel formula is provable in PA; and it is therefore also algorithmically verifiable as true under the algorithmically verifiable standard interpretation of PA over the structure of the natural numbers—which means that the logic by which the standard interpretation of PA assigns values of ‘satisfaction’ and ‘truth’ to the formulas of PA (under Tarski’s definitions) may be paraconsistent (see *http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent*) since PA is consistent;

(v) The Gödel formula is provable in PA; and it is therefore algorithmically computable as true (Corollary 8.2, p.16, of *the Epsilon 2015 paper*) under the algorithmically computable finitary interpretation of PA over the structure of the natural numbers.

3. It also means that:

(a) The “Gödel-Rosser Theorem” is not a Theorem of PA;

(b) The “unprovable Gödel sentence” is not a “problematic statement”;

(c) The “PA system” does not require a “remedy” just because it is “-inconsistent”;

(d) No “new axiom or new rule” can “by-pass the unprovable sentence”.

4. Which raises the question:

Why do you see the “unprovable Gödel sentence” as a “problematic statement” that requires a “remedy” which must “by-pass the unprovable sentence”?

(*Notations, non-standard concepts, and definitions used commonly in these investigations are detailed in this post.*)

**Ferguson’s and Priest’s thesis**

In a brief, but provocative, *review* of what they term as “the enduring evolution of logic” over the ages, the authors of Oxford University Press’ recently released ‘*A Dictionary of Logic*‘, philosophers *Thomas Macaulay Ferguson* and *Graham Priest*, take to task what they view as a Kant-influenced manner in which logic is taught as a first course in most places in the world:

“… as usually ahistorical and somewhat dogmatic. This is what logic is; just learn the rules. It is as if Frege had brought down the tablets from Mount Sinai: the result is God-given, fixed, and unquestionable.”

Ferguson and Priest conclude their review by remarking that:

“Logic provides a theory, or set of theories, about what follows from what, and why. And like any theoretical inquiry, it has evolved, and will continue to do so. It will surely produce theories of greater depth, scope, subtlety, refinement—and maybe even truth.”

However, it is not obvious whether that is prescient optimism, or a tongue-in-cheek exit line!

** A nineteenth century parody of the struggle to define ‘truth’ objectively**

For, if anything, the developments in logic since around 1931 has—seemingly in gross violation of the hallowed principle of Ockham’s razor, and its crude, but highly effective, modern avatar KISS—indeed produced a plethora of theories of great depth, scope, subtlety, and refinement.

These, however, seem to have more in common with the, cynical, twentieth century emphasis on subjective, unverifiable, ‘truth’, rather than with the concept of an objective, evidence-based, ‘truth’ that centuries of philosophers and mathematicians strenuously struggled to differentiate and express.

A struggle reflected so eloquently in *this nineteenth century quote*:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

… Lewis Carroll (Charles L. Dodgson), ‘Through the Looking-Glass’, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934 ed.). First published in 1872.

**Making sense of mathematical propositions about infinite processes**

It was, indeed, an epic struggle which culminated in the nineteenth century standards of rigour successfully imposed—in no small measure by the works of Augustin-Louis Cauchy and Karl Weierstrasse—on verifiable interpretations of mathematical propositions about infinite processes involving real numbers.

A struggle, moreover, which should have culminated equally successfully in similar twentieth century standards—on verifiable interpretations of mathematical propositions containing references to infinite computations involving integers—sought to be imposed in 1936 by Alan Turing upon philosophical and mathematical discourse.

**The Liar paradox**

For it follows from Turing’s 1936 reasoning that where quantification is not, or cannot be, explicitly defined in formal logical terms—eg. the classical expression of the Liar paradox as ‘This sentence is a lie’—a paradox cannot per se be considered as posing serious linguistic or philosophical concerns (see, for instance, the series of four posts beginning *here*).

Of course—as reflected implicitly in Kurt Gödel’s seminal 1931 paper on undecidable arithmetical propositions—it would be a matter of serious concern if the word ‘This’ in the English language sentence, ‘This sentence is a lie’, could be validly viewed as implicitly implying that:

(i) there is a constructive infinite enumeration of English language sentences;

(ii) to each of which a truth-value can be constructively assigned by the rules of a two-valued logic; and,

(iii) in which ‘This’ refers uniquely to a particular sentence in the enumeration.

**Gödel’s influence on Turing’s reasoning**

However, Turing’s constructive perspective had the misfortune of being subverted by a knee-jerk, anti-establishment, culture that was—and apparently remains to this day—overwhelmed by Gödel’s powerful Platonic—and essentially unverifiable—mathematical and philosophical 1931 interpretation of his own construction of an arithmetical proposition that is formally unprovable, but undeniably true under any definition of ‘truth’ in any interpretation of arithmetic over the natural numbers.

Otherwise, I believe that Turing could easily have provided the necessary constructive interpretations of arithmetical truth—sought by David Hilbert for establishing the consistency of number theory finitarily—which is addressed by *the following paper* due to appear in the December 2016 issue of ‘*Cognitive Systems Research*‘:

**What is logic: using Ockham’s razor**

Moreover, the paper endorses the implicit orthodoxy of an Ockham’s razor influenced perspective—which Ferguson and Priest seemingly find wanting—that logic is simply a deterministic set of rules that must constructively assign the truth values of ‘truth/falsity’ to the sentences of a language.

It is a view that I expressed earlier as the key to a possible resolution of the *EPR paradox* in the *following paper* that I *presented* on 26’th June at the workshop on *Emergent Computational Logics* at UNILOG’2015, Istanbul, Turkey:

where I introduced the definition:

A finite set of rules is a Logic of a formal mathematical language if, and only if, constructively assigns unique truth-values:

(a) Of provability/unprovability to the formulas of ; and

(b) Of truth/falsity to the sentences of the Theory which is defined semantically by the -interpretation of over a structure .

I showed there that such a definitional rule-based approach to ‘logic’ and ‘truth’ allows us to:

Equate the provable formulas of the first order Peano Arithmetic PA with the PA formulas that can be evidenced as `true’ under an algorithmically computable interpretation of PA over the structure of the natural numbers;

Adequately represent some of the philosophically troubling abstractions of the physical sciences mathematically;

Interpret such representations unambiguously; and

Conclude further:

First that the concept of infinity is an emergent feature of any mechanical intelligence whose true arithmetical propositions are provable in the first-order Peano Arithmetic; and

Second that discovery and formulation of the laws of quantum physics lies within the algorithmically computable logic and reasoning of a mechanical intelligence whose logic is circumscribed by the first-order Peano Arithmetic.

(*Notations, non-standard concepts, and definitions used commonly in these investigations are detailed in this post.*)

**A Economist: The return of the machinery question**

In a Special Report on Artificial Intelligence in its issue of 25th June 2016, ‘*The return of the machinery question*‘, the Economist suggests that both cosmologist *Stephen Hawking* and enterpreneur *Elon Musk* share to some degree the:

“… fear that AI poses an existential threat to humanity, because superintelligent computers might not share mankind’s goals and could turn on their creators”.

**B Our irrational propensity to fear that which we are drawn to embrace**

Surprising, since I suspect both would readily agree that, if anything should scare us, it is our irrational propensity to fear that which we are drawn to embrace!

And therein should lie not only our comfort, but perhaps also our salvation.

For Artificial Intelligence is constrained by rationality; Human Intelligence is not.

An Artificial Intelligence must, whether individually or collectively, create and/or destroy only rationally. Humankind can and does, both individually and collectively, create and destroy irrationally.

**C Justifying irrationality**

For instance, as the legatees of logicians Kurt Goedel and Alfred Tarski have amply demonstrated, a Human Intelligence can easily be led to believe that some statements of even the simplest of mathematical languages—Arithmetic—must be both ‘formally undecidable’ and ‘true’, even in the absence of any objective yardstick for determining what is ‘true’!

**D Differentiating between Human reasoning and Mechanistic reasoning**

An Artificial Intelligence, however, can only treat as true that which can be proven—by its rules—to be true by an objective assignment of ‘truth’ and ‘provability’ values to the propositions of the language that formally expresses its mechanical operations—Arithmetic.

The implications of the difference are not obvious; but that the difference could be significant is the thesis of *this paper* which is due to appear in the December 2016 issue of Cognitive Systems Research:

‘*The Truth Assignments That Differentiate Human Reasoning From Mechanistic Reasoning*‘.

**E Respect for evidence-based ‘truth’ could be Darwinian**

More importantly, the paper demonstrates that both Human Intelligence—whose evolution is accepted as Darwinian—and Artificial Intelligence—whose evolution it is ‘feared’ may be Darwinian—share a common (Darwinian?) respect for an accountable concept of ‘truth’.

A respect that should make both Intelligences fitter to survive by recognising what philosopher *Christopher Mole* describes in *this invitational blogpost* as the:

“… importance of the rapport between an organism and its environment”

—an environment that can obviously accommodate the birth, and nurture the evolution, of both intelligences.

So, it may not be too far-fetched to conjecture that the evolution of both intelligences must also, then, share a Darwinian respect for the kind of human values—towards protecting intelligent life forms—that, no matter in how limited or flawed a guise, is visibly emerging as an inherent characteristic of a human evolution which, no matter what the cost could, albeit optimistically, be viewed as struggling to incrementally strengthen, and simultaneously integrate, individualism (fundamental particles) into nationalism (atoms) into multi-nationalism (molecules) and, possibly, into universalism (elements).

**F The larger question: Should we fear an extra-terrestrial Intelligence?**

From a broader perspective yet, our apprehensions about the evolution of a rampant Artificial Intelligence created by a Frankensteinian Human Intelligence should, perhaps, more rightly be addressed—as some have urged—within the larger uncertainty posed by SETI:

*Is there a rational danger to humankind in actively seeking an extra-terrestrial intelligence?*

I would argue that any answer would depend on how we articulate the question and that, in order to engage in a constructive and productive debate, we need to question—and reduce to a minimum—some of our most cherished mathematical and scientific beliefs and fears which cannot be communicated objectively.

**The Unexplained Intellect: Complexity, Time, and the Metaphysics of Embodied Thought**

*Christopher Mole* is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. He is the author of *Attention is Cognitive Unison: An Essay in Philosophical Psychology* (OUP, 2011), and *The Unexplained Intellect: Complexity, Time, and the Metaphysics of Embodied Thought* (Routledge, 2016).

In his preface to *The Unexplained Intellect*, Mole emphasises that his book is an attempt to provide arguments for (amongst others) the three theses that:

(i) “Intelligence might become explicable if we treat intelligence thought as if it were some sort of computation”;

(ii) “The importance of the rapport between an organism and its environment must be understood from a broadly computational perspective”;

(iii) “ our difficulties in accounting for our psychological orientation with respect to time are indications of the need to shift our philosophical focus away from mental *states*—which are altogether too static—and towards a theory of the mind in which it is *dynamic* mental entities that are taken to be metaphysically foundational”.

Mole explains at length his main claims in *The Unexplained Intellect*—and the cause that those claims serve—in a lucid and penetrating, VI-part, series of invited posts in *The Brains blog* (a leading forum for work in the philosophy and science of mind that was founded in 2005 by *Gualtiero Piccinini*, and has been administered by *John Schwenkler* since late 2011).

In these posts, Mole seeks to make the following points.

**I: The Unexplained Intellect: The mind is not a hoard of sentences**

We do not currently have a satisfactory account of how minds could be had by material creatures. If such an account is to be given then every mental phenomenon will need to find a place within it. Many will be accounted for by relating them to other things that are mental, but there must come a point at which we break out of the mental domain, and account for some things that are mental by reference to some that are not. It is unclear where this break out point will be. In that sense it is unclear which mental entities are, metaphysically speaking, the most fundamental.

At some point in the twentieth century, philosophers fell into the habit of writing as if the most fundamental things in the mental domain are mental states (where these are thought of as states having objective features of the world as their truth-evaluable contents). This led to a picture in which the mind was regarded as something like a hoard of sentences. The philosophers and cognitive scientists who have operated with this picture have taken their job to be telling us what sort of content these mental sentences have, how that content is structured, how the sentences come to have it, how they get put into and taken out of storage, how they interact with one another, how they influence behaviour, and so on.

This emphasis on states has caused us to underestimate the importance of non-static mental entities, such as inferences, actions, and encounters with the world. If we take these dynamic entities to be among the most fundamental of the items in the mental domain, then — I argue — we can avoid a number of philosophical problems. Most importantly, we can avoid a picture in which intelligent thought would be beyond the capacities of any physically implementable system.

**II: The Unexplained Intellect: Computation and the explanation of intelligence**

A lot of philosophers think that consciousness is what makes the mind/body problem interesting, perhaps because they think that consciousness is the only part of that problem that remains wholly philosophical. Other aspects of the mind are taken to be explicable by scientific means, even if explanatorily adequate theories of them remain to be specified.

I’ll remind the reader of computability theory’s power, with a view to indicating how it is that the discoveries of theoretical computer scientists place constraints on our understanding of what intelligence is, and of how it is possible.

**III: The Unexplained Intellect: The importance of computability**

If we found that we had been conceiving of intelligence in such a way that intelligence could not be modelled by a Turing Machine, our response should not be to conclude that some alternative must be found to a ‘Classically Computational Theory of the Mind’. To think only that would be to underestimate the scope of the theory of computability. We should instead conclude that, on the conception in question, intelligence would (be) *absolutely* inexplicable. This need to avoid making intelligence inexplicable places constraints on our conception of what intelligence is.

**IV: The Unexplained Intellect: Consequences of imperfection**

The lesson to be drawn is that, if we think of intelligence as involving the maintenance of satisfiable beliefs, and if we think of our beliefs as corresponding to a set of representational states, then our intelligence would depend on a run of good luck the chances of which are unknown.

My suggestion is that we can reach a more explanatorily satisfactory conception of intelligence if we adopt a dynamic picture of the mind’s metaphysical foundations.

**V: The Unexplained Intellect: The importance of rapport**

I suggest that something roughly similar is true of us. We are not guaranteed to have satisfiable beliefs, and sometimes we are rather bad at avoiding unsatisfiability, but such intelligence as we have is to be explained by reference to the rapport between our minds and the world.

Rather than starting from a set of belief states, and then supposing that there is some internal process operating on these states that enables us to update our beliefs rationally, we should start out by accounting for the dynamic processes through which the world is epistemically encountered. Much as the three-colourable map generator reliably produces three-colourable maps because it is essential to his map-making procedure that borders appear only where they will allow for three colorability, so it is essential to what it is for a state to be a belief that beliefs will appear only if there is some rapport between the believer and the world. And this rapport — rather than any internal processing considered in isolation from it — can explain the tendency for our beliefs to respect the demands of intelligence.

**VI: The Unexplained Intellect: The mind’s dynamic foundations**

memory is essentially a form of epistemic retentiveness: One’s present knowledge counts as an instance of memory when and only when it was attained on the basis of an epistemic encounter that lies in one’s past. One can epistemically encounter a *proposition* as the conclusion of an argument, and so can encounter it before the occurrence of any event to which it pertains, but one cannot encounter an *event* in that way. In the resulting explanation of memory’s temporal asymmetry, it is the dynamic events of epistemic encountering to which we must make reference. These encounters, and not the knowledge states to which they lead, do the lion’s share of the explanatory work.

**A: Simplifying Mole’s perspective**

It may help simplify Mole’s thought-provoking perspective if we make an arbitrary distinction between:

(i) The mind of an applied scientist, whose primary concern is our sensory observations of a ‘common’ external world;

(ii) The mind of a philosopher, whose primary concern is abstracting a coherent perspective of the external world from our sensory observations; and

(iii) The mind of a mathematician, whose primary concern is adequately expressing such abstractions in a formal language of unambiguous communication.

My understanding of Mole’s thesis, then, is that:

(a) although a mathematician’s mind may be capable of defining the ‘truth’ value of some logical and mathematical propositions without reference to the external world,

(b) the ‘truth’ value of any logical or mathematical proposition that purports to represent any aspect of the real world must be capable of being evidenced objectively to the mind of an applied scientist; and that,

(c) of the latter ‘truths’, what should interest the mind of a philosopher is whether there are some that are ‘knowable’ completely independently of the passage of time, and some that are ‘knowable’ only partially, or incrementally, with the passage of time.

**B. Support for Mole’s thesis**

It also seems to me that Mole’s thesis implicitly subsumes, or at the very least echoes, the belief expressed by Chetan R. Murthy (‘An Evaluation Semantics for Classical Proofs‘, Proceedings of Sixth IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 96-109, 1991; also Cornell TR 91-1213):

“It is by now folklore … that one can view the values of a simple functional language as specifying evidence for propositions in a constructive logic …”

If so, the thesis seems significantly supported by the following paper that is due to appear in the December 2016 issue of ‘Cognitive Systems Research’:

The CSR paper implicitly suggests that there are, indeed, (only?) two ways of assigning ‘true’ or ‘false’ values to any mathematical description of real-world events.

**C. Algorithmic computability**

First, a number theoretical relation is algorithmically computable if, and only if, there is an algorithm that can provide objective evidence (cf. ibid Murthy 91) for deciding the truth/falsity of each proposition in the denumerable sequence .

(We note that the concept of `algorithmic computability’ is essentially an expression of the more rigorously defined concept of `realizability’ on p.503 of Stephen Cole Kleene’s ‘*Introduction to Metamathematics*‘, North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.)

**D. Algorithmic verifiability**

Second, a number-theoretical relation is algorithmically verifiable if, and only if, for any given natural number , there is an algorithm which can provide objective evidence for deciding the truth/falsity of each proposition in the finite sequence .

We note that algorithmic computability implies the existence of an algorithm that can finitarily decide the truth/falsity of each proposition in a well-defined denumerable sequence of propositions, whereas algorithmic verifiability does not imply the existence of an algorithm that can finitarily decide the truth/falsity of each proposition in a well-defined denumerable sequence of propositions.

The following theorem (Theorem 2.1, p.37 of the *CSR paper*) shows that although every algorithmically computable relation is algorithmically verifiable, the converse is not true:

**Theorem**: There are number theoretic functions that are algorithmically verifiable but not algorithmically computable.

**E. The significance of algorithmic ‘truth’ assignments for Mole’s theses**

The significance of such algorithmic ‘truth’ assignments for Mole’s theses is that:

*Algorithmic computability*—reflecting the ambit of classical Newtonian mechanics—characterises natural phenomena that are determinate and predictable.

Such phenomena are describable by mathematical propositions that can be termed as ‘knowable completely’, since at any point of time they are algorithmically computable as ‘true’ or ‘false’.

Hence both their past and future behaviour is completely computable, and their ‘truth’ values are therefore ‘knowable’ independent of the passage of time.

*Algorithmic verifiability*—reflecting the ambit of Quantum mechanics—characterises natural phenomena that are determinate but unpredictable.

Such phenomena are describable by mathematical propositions that can only be termed as ‘knowable incompletely’, since at any point of time they are only algorithmically verifiable, but not algorithmically computable, as ‘true’ or ‘false’

Hence, although their past behaviour is completely computable, their future behaviour is not completely predictable, and their ‘truth’ values are not independent of the passage of time.

**F. Where Mole’s implicit faith in the adequacy of set theoretical representations of natural phenomena may be misplaced**

It also seems to me that, although Mole’s analysis justifiably holds that the:

“ importance of the rapport between an organism and its environment”

has been underacknowledged, or even overlooked, by existing theories of the mind and intelligence, it does not seem to mistrust, and therefore ascribe such underacknowledgement to any lacuna in, the mathematical and epistemic foundations of the formal language in which almost all descriptions of real-world events are currently sought to be expressed, which is the language of the set theory ZF.

**G. Any claim to a physically manifestable ‘truth’ must be objectively accountable**

Now, so far as applied science is concerned, history teaches us that the ‘truth’ of any mathematical proposition that purports to represent any aspect of the external world must be capable of being evidenced objectively; and that such ‘truths’ must not be only of a subjective and/or revelationary nature which may require truth-certification by evolutionarily selected prophets.

(Not necessarily religious—see, for instance, Melvyn B. Nathanson’s remarks, “*Desperately Seeking Mathematical Truth*“, in the Opinion piece in the August 2008 Notices of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 55, Issue 7.)

The broader significance of seeking objective accountability is that it admits the following (admittedly iconoclastic) distinction between the two fundamental mathematical languages:

1. The first-order Peano Arithmetic PA as the language of science; and

2. The first-order Set Theory ZF as the language of science fiction.

It is a distinction that is faintly reflected in Stephen G. Simpson’s more conservative perspective in his paper ‘*Partial Realizations of Hilbert’s Program*‘ (#6.4, p.15):

“Finitistic reasoning (my read: ‘First-order Peano Arithmetic PA’) is unique because of its clear real-world meaning and its indispensability for all scientific thought. Nonfinitistic reasoning (my read: ‘First-order Set Theory ZF’) can be accused of referring not to anything in reality but only to arbitrary mental constructions. Hence nonfinitistic mathematics can be accused of being not science but merely a mental game played for the amusement of mathematicians.”

The distinction is supported by the formal argument (detailed in the above-cited CSR paper) that:

(i) PA has two, hitherto unsuspected, evidence-based interpretations, the first of which can be treated as circumscribing the ambit of human reasoning about ‘true’ arithmetical propositions; and the second can be treated as circumscribing the ambit of mechanistic reasoning about ‘true’ arithmetical propositions.

What this means is that the language of arithmetic—formally expressed as PA—can provide all the foundational needs for all practical applications of mathematics in the physical sciences. This was was the point that I sought to make—in a limited way, with respect to quantum phenomena—in the following paper presented at Unilog 2015, Istanbul last year:

(Presented on 26’th June at the workshop on ‘*Emergent Computational Logics*’ at *UNILOG’2015, 5th World Congress and School on Universal Logic*, 20th June 2015 – 30th June 2015, Istanbul, Turkey.)

(ii) Since ZF axiomatically postulates the existence of an infinite set that cannot be evidenced (and which cannot be introduced as a constant into PA, or as an element into the domain of any interpretation of PA, without inviting inconsistency—see Theorem 1 in 4 of *this post*), it can have no evidence-based interpretation that could be treated as circumscribing the ambit of either human reasoning about ‘true’ set-theoretical propositions, or that of mechanistic reasoning about ‘true’ set-theoretical propositions.

The language of set theory—formally expressed as ZF—thus provides the foundation for abstract structures that—although of possible interest to philosophers of science—are only mentally conceivable by mathematicians subjectively, and have no verifiable physical counterparts, or immediately practical applications of mathematics, that can materially impact on the study of physical phenomena.

The significance of this distinction can be expressed more vividly in Russell’s phraseology as:

(iii) In the first-order Peano Arithmetic PA we always know what we are talking about, even though we may not always know whether it is true or not;

(iv) In the first-order Set Theory we never know what we are talking about, so the question of whether or not it is true is only of fictional interest.

**H. The importance of Mole’s ‘rapport’**

Accordingly, I see it as axiomatic that the relationship between an evidence-based mathematical language and the physical phenomena that it purports to describe, must be in what Mole terms as ‘rapport’, if we view mathematics as a set of linguistic tools that have evolved:

(a) to adequately abstract and precisely express through human reasoning our observations of physical phenomena in the world in which we live and work; and

(b) unambiguously communicate such abstractions and their expression to others through objectively evidenced reasoning in order to function to the maximum of our co-operative potential in acieving a better understanding of physical phenomena.

This is the perspective that I sought to make in the following paper presented at Epsilon 2015, Montpellier, last June, where I argue against the introduction of ‘unspecifiable’ elements (such as completed infinities) into either a formal language or any of its evidence-based interpretations (in support of the argument that since a completed infinity cannot be evidence-based, it must therefore be dispensible in any purported description of reality):

(Presented on 10th June at the Epsilon 2015 workshop on ‘*Hilbert’s Epsilon and Tau in Logic, Informatics and Linguistics*’, 10th June 2015 – 12th June 2015, University of Montpellier, France.)

**I. Why mathematical reasoning must reflect an ‘agnostic’ perspective**

Moreover, from a non-mathematician’s perspective, a Propertarian like *Curt Doolittle* would seem justified in his critique (comment of June 2, 2016 in *this Quanta review*) of the seemingly ‘mystical’ and ‘irrelevant’ direction in which conventional interpretations of Hilbert’s ‘theistic’ and Brouwer’s ‘atheistic’ reasoning appear to have pointed mainstream mathematics for, as I argue informally in an *earlier post*, the ‘truths’ of any mathematical reasoning must reflect an ‘agnostic’ perspective.

**A new proof?**

An interesting *review* by Natalie Wolchover on May 24, 2016, in the on-line magazine *Quanta*, reports that:

“With a surprising new proof, two young mathematicians have found a bridge across the finite-infinite divide, helping at the same time to map this strange boundary.

The boundary does not pass between some huge finite number and the next, infinitely large one. Rather, it separates two kinds of mathematical statements: ‘finitistic’ ones, which can be proved without invoking the concept of infinity, and ‘infinitistic’ ones, which rest on the assumption — not evident in nature — that infinite objects exist.”

More concretely:

“In the *new proof*, Keita Yokoyama, 34, a mathematician at the *Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology*, and Ludovic Patey, 27, a computer scientist from *Paris Diderot University*, pin down the logical strength of — but not at a level most people expected. The theorem is ostensibly a statement about infinite objects. And yet, Yokoyama and Patey found that it is ‘finitistically reducible’: It’s equivalent in strength to a system of logic that does not invoke infinity. This result means that the infinite apparatus in can be wielded to prove new facts in finitistic mathematics, forming a surprising bridge between the finite and the infinite.”

**The proof appeals to properties of transfinite ordinals**

My immediate reservation—after a brief glance at the formal definitions in 1.6 on p.6 of the *Yokoyama-Patey paper*—was that the domain of the structure in which the formal result is proved necessarily contains at least Cantor’s smallest transfinite ordinal , whereas the result is apparently sought to be ‘finitistically reducible’ (as considered by Stephen G. Simpson in an absorbing survey of *Partial Realizations of Hilbert’s Program*), in the sense of being not only finitarily provable, but interpretable in, and applicable to, finite structures (such as that of the natural numbers) whose domains may not contain (nor, in some cases, even admit—see Theorem 1 in 4.1 of *this post*) an infinite ‘number’.

Prima facie, the implicit assumption here (see also *this post*) seems to reflect, for instance, the conventional wisdom that every proposition which is formally provable about the finite, set-theoretically defined ordinals (necessarily assumed consistent with an axiom of infinity), must necessarily interpret as a true proposition about the natural numbers.

**Why we cannot ignore Skolem’s cautionary remarks**

In this conventional wisdom—by terming it as Skolem’s Paradox—both accepts and implicitly justifies ignoring Thoraf Skolem’s cautionary remarks about unrestrictedly corresponding putative mathematical relations and entities across domains of different axiom systems.

(*Thoralf Skolem*. 1922. *Some remarks on axiomatized set theory*. Text of an address delivered in Helsinki before the *Fifth Congress of Scandinavian Mathematicians*, 4-7 August 1922. In Jean van Heijenoort. 1967. Ed. *From Frege to Gödel: A source book in Mathematical Logic, 1878 – 1931*. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.)

However, that the assumption is fragile is seen since, without such an assumption, we can only conclude from, say, Goodstein’s argument that a Goodstein sequence defined over the finite ZF ordinals must terminate finitely even if the corresponding Goodstein sequence over the natural numbers does not terminate (see Theorem 2 of this unpublished investigation)!

(*R. L. Goodstein*. 1944. *On the Restricted Ordinal Theorem*. In the *Journal of Symbolic Logic* 9, 33-41.)

**A remarkable exposition of Ramsey’s Theorem**

The Yokoyama-Patey proof invites other reservations too.

In a comment—remarkable for its clarity of exposition—academically minded ‘Peter’ illustrates Ramsey’s Theorem as follows:

Something that might help to understand what’s going on here is to start one level lower: Ramsey’s theorem for singletons () says that however you colour the integers with two colours (say red and blue), you are guaranteed to find an infinite monochromatic subset. To see this is true, simply go along the integers starting from and put them into the red or the blue bag according to their colour. Since in each step you increase the size of one or the other bag, without removing anything, you end up with an infinite set. This is a finitistic proof: it never really uses infinity, but it tells you how to construct the first part of the ‘infinite set’.

Now let’s try the standard proof for , pairs. This time we will go along the integers twice, and we will throw away a lot as we go.

The first time, we start at . Because there are infinitely many numbers bigger than , each of which makes a pair with and each of which pairs is coloured either red or blue, there are either infinitely many red pairs with or infinitely many blue pairs (note: this is really using ). I write down under ‘red’ or ‘blue’ depending on which it turned out to be (in case both sets of pairs are infinite, I’ll write red just to break a tie), then I cross out all the numbers bigger than which make the ‘wrong colour’ pair with .

Now I move on to the next number, say , I didn’t cross out, and I look at all the pairs it makes with the un-crossed-out numbers bigger than it. There are still infinitely many, so either the red pairs or the blue pairs form an infinite set (or both). I write down red or blue below as before, and again cross out all the number bigger than which make a wrong colour pair with . And I keep going like this; because everything stays infinite I never get stuck.

After an infinitely long time, I can go back and look at all the numbers which I did not cross out – there is an infinite list of them. Under each is written either ‘red’ or ‘blue’, and if under (say) number the word ‘red’ is written, then forms red pairs with all the un-crossed-out numbers bigger than . Now (using again) either the word ‘red’ or the word ‘blue’ was written infinitely often, so I can pick an infinite set of numbers under which I wrote either always ‘red’ or always ‘blue’. Suppose it was always ‘red’; then if and are any two numbers in the collection I picked, the pair will be red – this is because one of and , say , is smaller, and by construction all the pairs from to bigger un-crossed-out numbers, including , are red. If it were always blue, by the same argument I get an infinite set where all pairs are blue.

What is different here to the first case? The difference is that in order to say whether I should write ‘red’ or ‘blue’ under (or any other number) in the first step, I have to ‘see’ the whole infinite set. I could look at a lot of these numbers and make a guess – but if the guess turns out to be wrong then it means I made a mistake at all the later steps of the process too; everything falls apart. This is not a finitistic proof – according to some logicians, you should be worried that it might somehow be wrong. Most mathematicians will say it is perfectly fine though.

Moving up to , the usual proof is an argument that looks quite a lot like the argument, except that instead of using in the ‘first pass’ it uses . All fine; we believe , so no problem. But now, when you want to write down ‘red’ or ‘blue under in this ‘first pass’ you have to know something more complicated about all the triples using ; you want to know if you can find an infinite set such that any pair in forms a red triple with . If not, tells you that you can find an infinite set such that any pair in forms a _blue_ triple with . Then you would cross off everything not in , and keep going as with . The proof doesn’t really get any harder for the general case (or indeed changing the number of colours to something bigger than ). If you’re happy with infinity, there’s nothing new to see here. If not – well, these proofs have you recursively using more and infinitely more appeals to something infinite as you increase k, which is not a happy place to be in if you don’t like infinity.

**Implicit assumptions in Yokoyama-Patey’s argument**

Peter’s clarity of exposition makes it easier to see that, in order to support the conclusion that their proof of Ramsey’s Theorem for pairs is ‘finitistically reducible’, Yokoyama-Patey must assume:

(i) that ZFC is consistent, and therefore has a Tarskian interpretation in which the ‘truth’ of a ZFC formula can be evidenced;

(ii) that their result must be capable of an evidence-based Tarskian interpretation over the ‘finitist’ structure of the natural numbers.

As to (i), Peter has already pointed out in his final sentence that there are (serious?) reservations to accepting that the ZF axiom of infinity can have any evidence-based interpretation.

As to (ii), Ramsey’s Theorem is an existensial ZFC formula of the form (whose proof must appeal to an axiom of choice).

Now in ZF (as in any first-order theory that appeals to the standard first-order logic FOL) the formula is merely an abbreviation for the formula .

So, under any consistent ‘finitistically reducible’ interpretation of such a formula, there must be a unique, unequivocal, evidence-based Tarskian interpretation of over the domain of the natural numbers.

Now, if we are to avoid intuitionistic objections to the admitting of ‘unspecified’ natural numbers in the definition of quantification under any evidence-based Tarskian interpretation of a formal system of arithmetic, we are faced with the ambiguity where the questions arise:

(a) Is the to be interpreted constructively as:

For any natural number , there is an algorithm (say, a deterministic Turing machine) which evidences that are all true; or,

(b) is the formula to be interpreted finitarily as:

There is a single algorithm (say, a deterministic Turing machine) which evidences that, for any natural number is true, i.e., each of is true?

As Peter has pointed out in his analysis of Ramsey’s Theorem for pairs, the proof of the Theorem necessitates that:

“I have to ‘see’ the whole infinite set. I could look at a lot of these numbers and make a guess – but if the guess turns out to be wrong then it means I made a mistake at all the later steps of the process too; everything falls apart. This is not a finitistic proof – according to some logicians, you should be worried that it might somehow be wrong.”

In other words, Yokoyama-Patey’s conclusion (that their new proof is ‘finitistically reducible’) would only hold if they have established (b) somewhere in their proof; but a cursory reading of their paper does not suggest this to be the case.

In a recent paper *A Relatively Small Turing Machine Whose Behavior Is Independent of Set Theory*, authors Adam Yedidia and Scott Aaronson argue upfront in their Introduction that:

“*Like any axiomatic system capable of encoding arithmetic, ZFC is constrained by Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems. The first incompleteness theorem states that if ZFC is consistent (it never proves both a statement and its opposite), then ZFC cannot also be complete (able to prove every true statement). The second incompleteness theorem states that if ZFC is consistent, then ZFC cannot prove its own consistency. Because we have built modern mathematics on top of ZFC, we can reasonably be said to have assumed ZFC’s consistency.*“

The question arises:

*How reasonable is it to build modern mathematics on top of a Set Theory such as ZF?*

Some immediate points to ponder upon (see also reservations expressed by Stephen G. Simpson in *Logic and Mathematics* and in *Partial Realizations of Hilbert’s Program*):

**1. “Like any axiomatic system capable of encoding arithmetic, …”**

The implicit assumption here that every ZF formula which is provable about the finite ZF ordinals must necessarily interpret as a true proposition about the natural numbers is fragile since, without such an assumption, we can only conclude from Goodstein’s argument (see Theorem 1.1 here) that a Goodstein sequence defined over the finite ZF ordinals must terminate even if the corresponding Goodstein sequence over the natural numbers does not terminate!

**2. “ZFC is constrained by Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems. The first incompleteness theorem states that if ZFC is consistent (it never proves both a statement and its opposite), then ZFC cannot also be complete (able to prove every true statement). The second incompleteness theorem states that if ZFC is consistent, then ZFC cannot prove its own consistency.”**

The implicit assumption here is that ZF is -consistent, which implies that ZF is consistent and must therefore have an interpretation over some mathematically definable structure in which ZF theorems interpret as ‘true’.

The question arises: Must such ‘truth’ be capable of being evidenced objectively, or is it only of a subjective, revelationary, nature (which may require truth-certification by evolutionarily selected prophets—see Nathanson’s remarks as cited in *this post*)?

The significance of seeking objective accountbility is that in a paper, “*The Truth Assignments That Differentiate Human Reasoning From Mechanistic Reasoning: The Evidence-Based Argument for Lucas’ Gödelian Thesis*“, which is due to appear in the December 2016 issue of *Cognitive Systems Research*, we show (see also *this post*) that the first-order Peano Arithmetic PA:

(i) is finitarily consistent; but

(ii) is *not* -consistent; and

(iii) has no ‘undecidable’ arithmetical proposition (whence both of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems hold vacuously so far as the arithmetic of the natural numbers is concerned).

**3. “Because we have built modern mathematics on top of ZFC, we can reasonably be said to have assumed ZFC’s consistency.”**

Now, one justification for such an assumption (without which it may be difficult to justify building modern mathematics on top of ZF) could be the belief that acquisition of set-theoretical knowledge by students of mathematics has some essential educational dimension.

If so, one should take into account not only the motivations of such a student for the learning of mathematics, but also those of a mathematician for teaching it.

This, in turn, means that both the content of the mathematics which is to be learnt (or taught), as well as the putative utility of such learning (or teaching) for a student (or teacher), merit consideration.

Considering content, I would iconoclastically submit that the least one may then need to accomodate is the following distinction between the two fundamental mathematical languages:

1. The first-order Peano Arithmetic PA, which is the language of science; and

2. The first-order Set Theory ZF, which is the language of science fiction.

A distinction that is reflected in Stephen G. Simpson’s more conservative perspective in *Partial Realizations of Hilbert’s Program* (6.4, p.15):

Finitistic reasoning (*read ‘First-order Peano Arithmetic PA’*) is unique because of its clear real-world meaning and its indispensability for all scientific thought. Nonfinitistic reasoning (*read ‘First-order Set Thyeory ZF’*) can be accused of referring not to anything in reality but only to arbitrary mental constructions. Hence nonfinitistic mathematics can be accused of being not science but merely a mental game played for the amusement of mathematicians.

Reason:

(i) PA has two, hitherto unsuspected, evidence-based interpretations (see *this post*), the first of which can be treated as circumscribing the ambit of human reasoning about `true’ arithmetical propositions; and the second can be treated as circumscribing the ambit of mechanistic reasoning about `true’ arithmetical propositions.

It is this language of arithmetic—formally expressed as PA—that provides the foundation for all practical applications of mathematics where the latter could be argued as having an essential educational dimension.

(ii) Since ZF axiomatically postulates the existence of an infinite set that cannot be evidenced (and which cannot be introduced as a constant into PA, or as an element into the domain of any interpretation of PA, without inviting inconsistency—see paragraph 4.2 of *this post*), it can have no evidence-based interpretation that could be treated as circumscribing the ambit of either human reasoning about `true’ set-theoretical propositions, or that of mechanistic reasoning about `true’ set-theoretical propositions.

The language of set theory—formally expressed as ZF—thus provides the foundation for abstract structures that are only mentally conceivable by mathematicians (subjectively?), and have no physical counterparts, or immediately practical applications of mathematics, which could meaningfully be argued as having an essential educational dimension.

The significance of this distinction can be expressed more vividly in Russell’s phraseology as:

(iii) In the first-order Peano Arithmetic PA we always know what we are talking about, even though we may not always know whether it is true or not;

(iv) In the first-order Set Theory we never know what we are talking about, so the question of whether or not it is true is only of fictional interest.

The distinction is lost when—as seems to be the case currently—we treat the acquisition of mathematical knowledge as necessarily including the body of essentially set-theoretic theorems—to the detriment, I would argue, of the larger body of aspiring students of mathematics whose flagging interest in acquiring such a wider knowledge in universities around the world reflects the fact that, for most students, their interests seem to lie primarily in how a study of mathematics can enable them to:

(a) adequately abstract and precisely express through human reasoning their experiences of the world in which they live and work; and

(b) unambiguously communicate such abstractions and their expression to others through objectively evidenced reasoning in order to function to the maximum of their latent potential in acieving their personal real-world goals.

In other words, it is not obvious how how any study of mathematics that has the limited goals (a) and (b) can have any essentially educational dimension that justifies the assumption that ZF is consistent.

** The Holy Grail of Arithmetic: Bridging Provability and Computability**

*See also this update.*

**Peter Wegner and Dina Goldin**

In a short opinion paper, `Computation Beyond Turing Machines‘, Computer Scientists Peter Wegner and Dina Goldin (Wg03) advanced the thesis that:

`A paradigm shift is necessary in our notion of computational problem solving, so it can provide a complete model for the services of today’s computing systems and software agents.’

We note that Wegner and Goldin’s arguments, in support of their thesis, seem to reflect an extraordinarily eclectic view of mathematics, combining both an implicit acceptance of, and implicit frustration at, the standard interpretations and dogmas of classical mathematical theory:

(i) `… Turing machines are inappropriate as a universal foundation for computational problem solving, and … computer science is a fundamentally non-mathematical discipline.’

(ii) `(Turing’s) 1936 paper … proved that mathematics could not be completely modeled by computers.’

(iii) `… the Church-Turing Thesis … equated logic, lambda calculus, Turing machines, and algorithmic computing as equivalent mechanisms of problem solving.’

(iv) `Turing implied in his 1936 paper that Turing machines … could not provide a model for all forms of mathematics.’

(v) `… Gödel had shown in 1931 that logic cannot model mathematics … and Turing showed that neither logic nor algorithms can completely model computing and human thought.’

These remarks vividly illustrate the dilemma with which not only Theoretical Computer Sciences, but all applied sciences that depend on mathematics—for providing a verifiable language to express their observations precisely—are faced:

**Query:** Are formal classical theories essentially unable to adequately express the extent and range of human cognition, or does the problem lie in the way formal theories are classically interpreted at the moment?

The former addresses the question of whether there are absolute limits on our capacity to express human cognition unambiguously; the latter, whether there are only temporal limits—not necessarily absolute—to the capacity of classical interpretations to communicate unambiguously that which we intended to capture within our formal expression.

Prima facie, applied science continues, perforce, to interpret mathematical concepts Platonically, whilst waiting for mathematics to provide suitable, and hopefully reliable, answers as to how best it may faithfully express its observations verifiably.

**Lance Fortnow**

This dilemma is also reflected in Computer Scientist Lance Fortnow’s on-line rebuttal of Wegner and Goldin’s thesis, and of their reasoning.

Thus Fortnow divides his faith between the standard interpretations of classical mathematics (and, possibly, the standard set-theoretical models of formal systems such as standard Peano Arithmetic), and the classical computational theory of Turing machines.

He relies on the former to provide all the proofs that matter:

`Not every mathematical statement has a logical proof, but logic does capture everything we can prove in mathematics, which is really what matters’;

and, on the latter to take care of all essential, non-provable, truth:

`… what we can compute is what computer science is all about’.

**Can faith alone suffice?**

However, as we shall argue in a subsequent post, Fortnow’s faith in a classical Church-Turing Thesis that ensures:

`… Turing machines capture everything we can compute’,

may be as misplaced as his faith in the infallibility of standard interpretations of classical mathematics.

*The reason:* There are, prima facie, reasonably strong arguments for a Kuhnian (Ku62) paradigm shift; not, as Wegner and Goldin believe, in the notion of computational problem solving, but in the standard interpretations of classical mathematical concepts.

However, Wegner and Goldin could be right in arguing that the direction of such a shift must be towards the incorporation of non-algorithmic effective methods into classical mathematical theory (as detailed in the Birmingham paper); presuming, from the following remarks, that this is, indeed, what `external interactions’ are assumed to provide beyond classical Turing-computability:

(vi) `… that Turing machine models could completely describe all forms of computation … contradicted Turing’s assertion that Turing machines could only formalize algorithmic problem solving … and became a dogmatic principle of the theory of computation’.

(vii) `… interaction between the program and the world (environment) that takes place during the computation plays a key role that cannot be replaced by any set of inputs determined prior to the computation’.

(viii) `… a theory of concurrency and interaction requires a new conceptual framework, not just a refinement of what we find natural for sequential [algorithmic] computing’.

(ix) `… the assumption that all of computation can be algorithmically specified is still widely accepted’.

A widespread notion of particular interest, which seems to be recurrently implicit in Wegner and Goldin’s assertions too, is that mathematics is a dispensable tool of science, rather than its indispensable mother tongue.

**Elliott Mendelson**

However, the roots of such beliefs may also lie in ambiguities, in the classical definitions of foundational elements, that allow the introduction of non-constructive—hence non-verifiable, non-computational, ambiguous, and essentially Platonic—elements into the standard interpretations of classical mathematics.

For instance, in a 1990 philosophical reflection, Elliott Mendelson’s following remarks (in Me90; reproduced from Selmer Bringsjord (Br93)), implicitly imply that classical definitions of various foundational elements can be argued as being either ambiguous, or non-constructive, or both:

`Here is the main conclusion I wish to draw: it is completely unwarranted to say that CT is unprovable just because it states an equivalence between a vague, imprecise notion (effectively computable function) and a precise mathematical notion (partial-recursive function). … The concepts and assumptions that support the notion of partial-recursive function are, in an essential way, no less vague and imprecise than the notion of effectively computable function; the former are just more familiar and are part of a respectable theory with connections to other parts of logic and mathematics. (The notion of effectively computable function could have been incorporated into an axiomatic presentation of classical mathematics, but the acceptance of CT made this unnecessary.) … Functions are defined in terms of sets, but the concept of set is no clearer than that of function and a foundation of mathematics can be based on a theory using function as primitive notion instead of set. Tarski’s definition of truth is formulated in set-theoretic terms, but the notion of set is no clearer than that of truth. The model-theoretic definition of logical validity is based ultimately on set theory, the foundations of which are no clearer than our intuitive understanding of logical validity. … The notion of Turing-computable function is no clearer than, nor more mathematically useful (foundationally speaking) than, the notion of an effectively computable function.’

Consequently, standard interpretations of classical theory may, inadvertently, be weakening a desirable perception—of mathematics as the lingua franca of scientific expression—by ignoring the possibility that, since mathematics is, indeed, indisputably accepted as the language that most effectively expresses and communicates intuitive truth, the chasm between formal truth and provability must, of necessity, be bridgeable.

**Cristian Calude, Elena Calude and Solomon Marcus**

The belief in the existence of such a bridge is occasionally implicit in interpretations of computational theory.

For instance, in an arXived paper *Passages of Proof*, Computer Scientists Cristian Calude, Elena Calude and Solomon Marcus remark that:

“Classically, there are two equivalent ways to look at the mathematical notion of proof: logical, as a finite sequence of sentences strictly obeying some axioms and inference rules, and computational, as a specific type of computation. Indeed, from a proof given as a sequence of sentences one can easily construct a Turing machine producing that sequence as the result of some finite computation and, conversely, given a machine computing a proof we can just print all sentences produced during the computation and arrange them into a sequence.”

In other words, the authors seem to hold that Turing-computability of a `proof’, in the case of an arithmetical proposition, is equivalent to provability of its representation in PA.

**Wilfrid Sieg**

We now attempt to build such a bridge formally, which is essentially one between the arithmetical ‘Decidability and Calculability’ described by Philosopher Wilfrid Sieg in his in-depth and wide-ranging survey ‘On Comptability‘, in which he addresses Gödel’s lifelong belief that an iff bridge between the two concepts is ‘impossible’ for ‘the whole calculus of predicates’ (Wi08, p.602).

** Bridging provability and computability: The foundations**

In the paper titled “Evidence-Based Interpretations of ” that was presented to the Symposium on Computational Philosophy at the AISB/IACAP World Congress 2012-Alan Turing 2012, held from to July 2012 at the University of Birmingham, UK (reproduced in this post) we have defined what it means for a number-theoretic function to be:

(i) Algorithmically verifiable;

(ii) Algorithmically computable.

We have shown there that:

(i) The standard interpretation of the first order Peano Arithmetic PA is finitarily sound if, and only if, Aristotle’s particularisation holds over ; and the latter is the case if, and only if, PA is -consistent.

(ii) We can define a finitarily sound algorithmic interpretation of PA over the domain where, if is an atomic formula of PA, then the sequence of natural numbers satisfies if, and only if is algorithmically computable under , but we do not presume that Aristotle’s particularisation is valid over .

(iii) The axioms of PA are always true under the finitary interpretation , and the rules of inference of PA preserve the properties of satisfaction/truth under .

We concluded that:

**Theorem 1:** The interpretation of PA is finitarily sound.

**Theorem 2:** PA is consistent.

** Extending Buss’ Bounded Arithmetic**

One of the more significant consequences of the Birmingham paper is that we can extend the iff bridge between the domain of provability and that of computability envisaged under Buss’ Bounded Arithmetic by showing that an arithmetical formula is PA-provable if, and only if, interprets as true under an algorithmic interpretation of PA.

** A Provability Theorem for PA**

We first show that PA can have no non-standard model (for a distinctly different proof of this convention-challenging thesis see this post and this paper), since it is `algorithmically’ complete in the sense that:

**Theorem 3:** (*Provability Theorem for PA*) A PA formula is PA-provable if, and only if, is algorithmically computable as always true in .

**Proof:** We have by definition that interprets as true under the interpretation if, and only if, is algorithmically computable as always true in .

Since is finitarily sound, it defines a finitary model of PA over —say —such that:

If is PA-provable, then is algorithmically computable as always true in ;

If is PA-provable, then it is not the case that is algorithmically computable as always true in .

Now, we cannot have that both and are PA-unprovable for some PA formula , as this would yield the contradiction:

(i) There is a finitary model—say —of PA+ in which is algorithmically computable as always true in .

(ii) There is a finitary model—say —of PA+ in which it is not the case that is algorithmically computable as always true in

The lemma follows.

** The holy grail of arithmetic**

We thus have that:

**Corollary 1:** PA is categorical finitarily.

Now we note that:

**Lemma 2:** If PA has a sound interpretation over , then there is a PA formula which is algorithmically verifiable as always true over under even though is not PA-provable.

**Proof** In his seminal 1931 paper on formally undecidable arithmetical propositions, Kurt Gödel has shown how to construct an arithmetical formula with a single variable—say ^{[1]}—such that is not PA-provable ^{[2]}, but is instantiationally PA-provable for any given PA numeral . Hence, for any given numeral , the PA formula must hold for some . The lemma follows.

By the argument in Theorem 3 it follows that:

**Corollary 2:** The PA formula defined in Lemma 2 is PA-provable.

**Corollary 3:** Under any sound interpretation of PA, Gödel’s interprets as an algorithmically verifiable, but not algorithmically computable, tautology over .

**Proof** Gödel has shown that ^{[3]} interprets as an algorithmically verifiable tautology ^{[4]}. By Corollary 2 is not algorithmically computable as always true in .

**Corollary 4:** PA is *not* -consistent. ^{[5]}

**Proof** Gödel has shown that if PA is consistent, then is PA-provable for any given PA numeral ^{[6]}. By Corollary 2 and the definition of -consistency, if PA is consistent then it is *not* -consistent.

**Corollary 5:** The standard interpretation of PA is not finitarily sound, and does not yield a finitary model of PA ^{[7]}.

**Proof** If PA is consistent but not -consistent, then Aristotle’s particularisation does not hold over . Since the `standard’, interpretation of PA appeals to Aristotle’s particularisation, the lemma follows.

Since formal quantification is currently interpreted in classical logic ^{[8]} so as to admit Aristotle’s particularisation over as axiomatic ^{[9]}, the above suggests that we may need to review number-theoretic arguments ^{[10]} that appeal unrestrictedly to classical Aristotlean logic.

** The Provability Theorem for PA and Bounded Arithmetic**

In a 1997 paper ^{[11]}, Samuel R. Buss considered Bounded Arithmetics obtained by:

(a) limiting the applicability of the Induction Axiom Schema in PA only to functions with quantifiers bounded by an unspecified natural number bound ;

(b) `weakening’ the statement of the axiom with the aim of differentiating between effective computability over the sequence of natural numbers, and feasible `polynomial-time’ computability over a bounded sequence of the natural numbers ^{[12]}.

Presumably Buss’ intent—as expressed below—is to build an iff bridge between provability in a Bounded Arithmetic and Computability so that a formula, say , is provable in the Bounded Arithmetic if, and only if, there is an algorithm that, for any given numeral , decides the formula as `true’:

If is provable, then there should be an algorithm to find as a function of ^{[13]}.

Since we have proven such a Provability Theorem for PA in the previous section, the first question arises:

** Does the introduction of bounded quantifiers yield any computational advantage?**

Now, one difference ^{[14]} between a Bounded Arithmetic and PA is that we can presume in the Bounded Arithmetic that, from a proof of , we may always conclude that there is some numeral such that is provable in the arithmetic; however, this is not a finitarily sound conclusion in PA.

*Reason:* Since is simply a shorthand for , such a presumption implies that Aristotle’s particularisation holds over the natural numbers under any finitarily sound interpretation of PA.

To see that (as Brouwer steadfastly held) this may not always be the case, interpret as ^{[15]}:

There is an algorithm that decides as `true’ for any given numeral .

In such case, if is provable in PA, then we can only conclude that:

There is an algorithm that, for any given numeral , decides that it is not the case that there is an algorithm that, for any given numeral , decides as `true’.

We cannot, however, conclude—as we can in a Bounded Arithmetic—that:

There is an algorithm that, for any given numeral , decides that there is an algorithm that, for some numeral , decides as `true’.

*Reason:* may be a Halting-type formula for some numeral .

This could be the case if were PA-*un*provable, but PA-provable for any given numeral .

Presumably it is the belief that any finitarily sound interpretation of PA requires Aristotle’s particularisation to hold in , and the recognition that the latter does not admit linking provability to computability in PA, which has led to considering the effect of bounding quantification in PA.

However, as we have seen in the preceding sections, we are able to link provability to computability through the Provability Theorem for PA by recognising precisely that, to the contrary, any interpretation of PA which requires Aristotle’s particularisation to hold in cannot be finitarily sound!

The postulation of an unspecified bound in a Bounded Arithmetic in order to arrive at a provability-computability link thus appears dispensible.

The question then arises:

** Does `weakening’ the PA Induction Axiom Schema yield any computational advantage?**

Now, Buss considers a bounded arithmetic which is, essentially, PA with the following `weakened’ Induction Axiom Schema, PIND ^{[16]}:

However, PIND can be expressed in first-order Peano Arithmetic PA as follows:

.

Moreover, the above is a particular case of PIND():

.

Now we have the PA theorem:

It follows that the following is also a PA theorem:

In other words, for any numeral , PIND() is equivalent in PA to the standard Induction Axiom of PA!

Thus, the Provability Theorem for PA suggests that all arguments and conclusions of a Bounded Arithmetic can be reflected in PA without any loss of generality.

**References**

**Br93** Selmer Bringsjord 1993. *The Narrational Case Against Church’s Thesis.* Easter APA meetings, Atlanta.

**Br08** L. E. J. Brouwer. 1908. *The Unreliability of the Logical Principles.* English translation in A. Heyting, Ed. *L. E. J. Brouwer: Collected Works 1: Philosophy and Foundations of Mathematics.* Amsterdam: North Holland / New York: American Elsevier (1975): pp.107-111.

**Bu97** Samuel R. Buss. 1997. *Bounded Arithmetic and Propositional Proof Complexity.* In *Logic of Computation.* pp.67-122. Ed. H. Schwichtenberg. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

**CCS01** Cristian S. Calude, Elena Calude and Solomon Marcus. 2001. *Passages of Proof.* Workshop, Annual Conference of the Australasian Association of Philosophy (New Zealand Division), Auckland. Archived at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0305213.pdf. Also in EATCS Bulletin, Number 84, October 2004, viii+258 pp.

**Da82** Martin Davis. 1958. *Computability and Unsolvability.* 1982 ed. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.

**EC89** Richard L. Epstein, Walter A. Carnielli. 1989. *Computability: Computable Functions, Logic, and the Foundations of Mathematics.* Wadsworth & Brooks, California.

**Go31** Kurt Gödel. 1931. *On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems I.* Translated by Elliott Mendelson. In M. Davis (ed.). 1965. *The Undecidable.* Raven Press, New York.

**HA28** David Hilbert & Wilhelm Ackermann. 1928. *Principles of Mathematical Logic.* Translation of the second edition of the *Grundzüge Der Theoretischen Logik.* 1928. Springer, Berlin. 1950. Chelsea Publishing Company, New York.

**He04** Catherine Christer-Hennix. 2004. *Some remarks on Finitistic Model Theory, Ultra-Intuitionism and the main problem of the Foundation of Mathematics.* ILLC Seminar, 2nd April 2004, Amsterdam.

**Hi25** David Hilbert. 1925. *On the Infinite.* Text of an address delivered in Münster on 4th June 1925 at a meeting of the Westphalian Mathematical Society. In Jean van Heijenoort. 1967.Ed. *From Frege to Gödel: A source book in Mathematical Logic, 1878 – 1931.* Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

**Ku62** Thomas S. Kuhn. 1962. *The structure of Scientific Revolutions.* 2nd Ed. 1970. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

**Me90** Elliott Mendelson. 1990. *Second Thoughts About Church’s Thesis and Mathematical Proofs.* In *Journal of Philosophy* 87.5.

**Pa71** Rohit Parikh. 1971. *Existence and Feasibility in Arithmetic.* In *The Journal of Symbolic Logic,>i> Vol.36, No. 3 (Sep., 1971), pp. 494-508.*

**Rg87** Hartley Rogers Jr. 1987. *Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability.* MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

**Ro36** J. Barkley Rosser. 1936. *Extensions of some Theorems of Gödel and Church.* In M. Davis (ed.). 1965. *The Undecidable.* Raven Press, New York. Reprinted from *The Journal of Symbolic Logic.* Vol.1. pp.87-91.

**Si08** Wilfrid Sieg. 2008. *On Computability* in *Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. Philosophy of Mathematics.* pp.525-621. Volume Editor: Andrew Irvine. General Editors: Dov M. Gabbay, Paul Thagard and John Woods. Elsevier BV. 2008.

**WG03** Peter Wegner and Dina Goldin. 2003. *Computation Beyond Turing Machines.* Communications of the ACM, 46 (4) 2003.

**Notes**

Return to 1: Gödel refers to this formula only by its Gödel number (Go31, p.25(12)).

Return to 2: Gödel’s immediate aim in Go31 was to show that is not P-provable; by Generalisation it follows, however, that is also not P-provable.

Return to 3: Gödel refers to this formula only by its Gödel number (Go31, p.25, eqn.12).

Return to 4: Go31, p.26(2): “ holds”.

Return to 5: This conclusion is contrary to accepted dogma. See, for instance, Davis’ remarks in Da82, p.129(iii) that:

“… there is no equivocation. Either an adequate arithmetical logic is -inconsistent (in which case it is possible to prove false statements within it) or it has an unsolvable decision problem and is subject to the limitations of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem”.

Return to 6: Go31, p.26(2).

Return to 7: I note that finitists of all hues—ranging from Brouwer Br08 to Alexander Yessenin-Volpin He04—have persistently questioned the finitary soundness of the `standard’ interpretation .

Return to 8: See Hi25, p.382; HA28, p.48; Be59, pp.178 \& 218.

Return to 9: In the sense of being intuitively obvious. See, for instance, Da82, p.xxiv; Rg87, p.308 (1)-(4); EC89, p.174 (4); BBJ03, p.102.

Return to 10: For instance Rosser’s construction of an undecidable arithmetical proposition in PA (see Ro36)—which does not explicitly assume that PA is -consistent—implicitly presumes that Aristotle’s particularisation holds over .

Return to 11: Bu97.

Return to 12: See also Pa71.

Return to 13: See Bu97.

Return to 14: We suspect the only one.

Return to 15: We have seen in the earlier sections that such an interpretation is finitarily sound.

Return to 16: Where denotes the largest natural number lower bound of the rational .

**Hawking’s provocative pronouncement**

On 15th May 2011, Stephen Hawking made the extraordinarily provocative pronouncement—almost en passant—in the early moments of his talk at Google’s annual Zeitgeist:

“Philosophy is dead”!

Amongst those he managed to successfully provoke were:

Members of Professor Anthony Beaver’s LinkedIn group ‘Computing and Philosophy’;

and:

A deliberately restrained—but forceful and well-stated—comment in response to Hawking’s provocation in the Aljazeera Opinion piece by Analytic Philosopher Justin Clarke-Doane set me thinking.

**What about Hawking’s Thesis?**

After we are done with dismissing or rationalising what Hawking said, shouldn’t we also engage in giving at least as serious consideration to the thesis that seemed to have been the backdrop to his pronouncement on the demise of philosophy as a potent tool of enquiry into the truth of scientific propositions?

This is his seemingly prophetic opinion that what we would term as the assignment of objective truth to mathematically expressed scientific propositions will, some day, be based entirely on the evidence provided by simple functional languages^{[1]} (read Turing machines) that are the `fundamental particles’ of Technology.

**A seeming contradiction**

Seemingly, there is straightaway a contradiction here.

The belief that all of natures laws and natural phenomena can be expressed in the algorithmically determinable truths of mathematical languages can be meta-mathematically expressed by saying that the Church-Turing Thesis must limit human intelligence as it does (by definition) mechanical intelligence.

In other words, even if the Thesis is not formally provable (hence not seen to be true) by a mechanical intelligence, it must be true for a human intelligence!

Apart from this, such a view may also then bind us to the conclusion that at least *our* universe is characterised by both non-locality and non-determinism (hence possibly the need for multiverses).

Whatever the argument for tolerating multiverses, I have suggested elsewhere that it should not, and perhaps need not, be because we are bound by scientific truths evidenced only by Hawking’s Technology.

**What do you think?**

Is Hawking’s thesis plausible or contradictory?

If the latter, then:

Does that validate Lucas’ Gödelian argument?

Return to 1: For instance see Chetan R. Murthy, 1991, *An Evaluation Semantics for Classical Proofs,* Proceedings of Sixth IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 96-109, (also Cornell TR 91-1213), 1991.

**The Gödelian argument afresh!**

In a talk given on 25/5/96 at a BSPS conference in Oxford, J. R. Lucas ^{[1]} articulated his original Gödelian argument ^{[2]} afresh as follows:

“The Mechanist claims to have a model of the mind. We take the Mechanist seriously only if he will warrant that his purported model of the mind is consistent. In that case it passes the First Public Examination, but comes down at the Second, because knowing that it is consistent, we know that its Gödelian formula is true, which it cannot itself produce as true.

More succinctly, we can, if a Mechanist presents us with a system that he claims is a model of the mind, ask him simply whether or not it can prove its Gödelian formula (according to some system of Gödel numbering).

If he says it can, we know that it is inconsistent, and would be equally able to prove that 2 and 2 make 5, or that 0=1, and we waste little time on examining it.

If, however, he acknowledges that the system cannot prove its Gödelian formula, then we know it is consistent, since it cannot prove every well-formed formula, and knowing that it is consistent, know also that its Gödelian formula is true.

In this formulation we have, essentially, a dialogue between the Mechanist and the Mentalist, as we may call him, with the Mechanist claiming to be able to produce a mechanist model of the Mentalist’s mind, and the Mentalist being able to refute each particular instance offered.”

**Do we really hope to get away with this argument?**

Actually, if we were to ask Lucas’ hypothetical Mechanist whether, or not, his model can prove its Gödelian formula, he would, most likely, retort:

`Before I commit my resources to something that may be impossible, can you assure me that it is provable?’

Of course we cannot, since we, too, cannot give a *finitary* proof of the formula that we are asking of the Mechanist’s *finitary* model.

If we, nevertheless, attempt to assert our superiority over the Mechanist by claiming, somewhat superciliously, that we do know, however, that the formula in question is true, but that it is one which the Mechanist’s model “cannot itself produce as true”, we would cut an even sorrier figure.

A prompt—seemingly astonished but subtly cunning—reply could be:

`Whatever gave you that idea! My model can even prove that it’s true.’

**The Mechanist’s Challenge**

If, unwittingly, we were to express incredulity, we would face the humiliating challenge:

`The Gödelian formula—which Gödel ^{[3]} refers to by its Gödel number—, is of the form .

Neither of us can prove it from the agreed set of premises by the specified rules of inference of the Arithmetic in question ^{[4]}.

However, for a large enough numeral , my model can always produce a proof sequence for from the premises faster than you.’

The reason we would have to sheepishly concede defeat, without even addressing the challenge, is that Gödel has constructed ^{[5]} a primitive recursive relation, , which ensures that the Mechanist can show that the Gödelian sentence is true, in the Tarskian sense, by providing a Turing machine that can “compute” as TRUE for any given numeral ^{[6]} as input.

Specifically, Gödel defines (primitive) recursively ^{[7]}—over the structure of the natural numbers—so that it holds for natural numbers , if, and only if, is the Gödel number of a proof sequence—in any Arithmetic of the natural numbers—for the formula of the Arithmetic whose Gödel number is .

Since our definition of the truth of a formula under an interpretation in is also based on Tarski’s specification that it hold exhaustively, i.e., every instantiation of it must hold in the interpretation, our argument for our intellectual superiority over the Mechanist’s model fails miserably in this particular instance.

*End of story?*

Not quite.

**There’s more**

We could perhaps try to find solace—and console ourselves—with the thought that our brains are not designed ideally to tackle problems that can only be tackled by brute force; but they are, surely, superior to the Mechanist’s model when it comes to proofs that require ingenuity.

However, we will, then, face even greater discomfiture.

Gödel has given ^{[8]} another primitive recursive predicate, , that the Mechanist can program on a UTM to—given sufficient time—create a set of theorems that will contain, and continue to be larger than, the set of all the arithmetical theorems that we have ever proven—and verified—collectively using only pencil, paper, and our “superior” intellects!

Gödel ^{[9]} defines (primitive) recursively so that it holds for any natural number if, and only if, is the Gödel number of a proof sequence in the Arithmetic.

Moreover, the set would contain theorems that we could not even conceptualise, since we would be unable to grasp even the statement, leave alone the proof, of these theorems!

**So, what is really wrong with the Gödelian argument?**

Well, ironically—and perhaps paradoxically—it’s simply another instance of human insecurity applying very common, and very human, double standards!

Namely, matching our selective interpretation of Tarski’s ambiguously defined concept of intuitive truth (we highlight this ambiguity here^{[10]}) against the Mechanist’s unambiguously defined concept of provability to subtly load the dice in our favour semantically when faced with formal arguments that threaten to expose the continuing reluctance of the human ego to come to terms adequately with, and tap constructively into, the awesome conceptual power, diversity, and potential of any Intelligence, human or otherwise.

**References**

**Go31** Kurt Gödel. 1931. *On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems I.* Translated by Elliott Mendelson. In M. Davis (ed.). 1965. *The Undecidable.* Raven Press, New York. pp.5-38.

**Lu61** J. R. Lucas. 1961. *Minds, Machines and Gödel.* Philosophy, XXXVI, 1961, pp.112-127; reprinted in *The Modeling of Mind.* Kenneth M. Sayre and Frederick J. Crosson, eds., Notre Dame Press, 1963, pp.269-270; and *Minds and Machines*, ed. Alan Ross Anderson, Prentice-Hall, 1954, pp.43-59.

**Lu03** John R. Lucas. 2003. *The Gödelian Argument: Turn Over the Page.* In Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, 2003, 1.

**An07** Bhupinder Singh Anand. 2007. *The Mechanist’s challenge.* in *The Reasoner,* Vol(1)5 p5-6.

**An12** Bhupinder Singh Anand. 2012. *Evidence-Based Interpretations of PA.* In Proceedings of the Symposium on Computational Philosophy at the AISB/IACAP World Congress 2012-Alan Turing 2012, 2-6 July 2012, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

**Notes**

Return to 1: See Lu03.

Return to 2: See Lu61.

Return to 3: Go31, p.25.

Return to 4: ibid., p.25(1), “ is not -provable”.

Return to 5: ibid., p.22(45)

Return to 6: ibid., p.26(2).

Return to 7: ibid., p.22, def. 45.

Return to 8: ibid., p.22(44).

Return to 9: ibid., p.22, def. 44.

Return to 10: See An12.

## Recent comments