Re: goedel

[John Vertegaal <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>]

You wrote:

>John:
>I don't understand your point.

My point is why should we put any import on what you have to say if
your line of reasoning is internally inconsistent.
  You can either accept inductive reasoning as valid, or you can
reject it; but if you accept it (and to some extent you apparently
do [*]), you cannot reject someone else's use of it by means of
deduction from lower level of generality pertaining elements.
i.e. In this case using Stephen Hawkings' statements about physics
and your own interpretation of economic ergodicity and econometrics
to infer that Bill Ryan's assertion confuses Map with Territory.

John V

* "I'm persuaded that our reasoning faculty and associated linear
thinking plays, as it were, second fiddle to our intuition."


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Vertegaal" <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "POST KEYNESIAN THOUGHT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: goedel


>
> Gunnar:
> The proof of irrelevance lies in self-contradiction.
> You try do disprove Bill's perfectly sensible "intuitive"
> assertion about real world phenomena, with linear reasoning
> you previously rejected as inferior to intuition.
>
> John V