Gödel, Tarski, & Logic. (for grace2u)

Later tonight or tommarrow I will post responses to both Zephyr and Mark25 on/in the DISTINGUISHING BARAMINOLGY thread in which I will show (by implication or in utility(without bias to a polarization of Creation and Evolution) that logic may be universal(Actually apply when not knowing if the space is only the solar system or some larger extant extent) while the number systems that relay that logic may not necessarily (also by implication) be consistent. The work is not typed up just yet. A sylllogism may be actual while the numbers used to display the same without words may not.

Mark- 24 , I am working on visual basic homework tonight- no time to get you guys up to me today- BEst ....It is not whatever...(I say) there are 5 steps in response to you before we can question a result, the result I am logically involving. This logic is used by doing both creation and evolution only I doubt it will universally be for as long a time as it takes to USE Godel but That will happen after I do some more Mendelism based on hybrids but my prepared repsonse to you will not go logically to this level. That will be for the future. Sorry I have to be this dense today. I have other things to do. I did not think that Grace 2 U remanded that one put out a response and then "leave". That is why I tried to get people to pay more attention to the baraminology thread today- that's all-A notion of "the entire universe" has something to do with Bertrand Russel's paradox and my guess is a likely rejection in this thread head of Cantor's solution to the ordinal of all ordinals (absolute Infintiy is not acutal). But this relatively may not mean that one may use Ae's reasoning, just havent had time to think it all thru except to know that I am proposing using an incomplete flesh to "program" the metric by rejection of a physcists reality but more later and then back to here....Making one whole or complete or being saved may not be an issue logically with the universe not as it may be but as it is... again- I could be wrong so it is not "what I say". If you stick with it I am fairly sure you if anyone here may be the first to "get me" in all my ornaments. But give it time. AE- I am still going to get back to your post trust me.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-19-2003]

"inconsisent" and "incompelte" apply to the numerology used to express natrualistic magnitudes if. One may choose a theology tht does not think that nature's "numbers" (say Kepler's idea or Plato's) are material but rather as Hume remarked a difference of "spirit" between the math and what the math represents when discussing a physcial void. I do not hold this position. It is out there though. I assume the numbers do not merely bound this vacuum or void.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-19-2003]