--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:My argument is that formalism failed.The Hilbert program failed. I'm not inclined to see that as the same as "formalism failed."
so, what is the difference between them, as you see it?
But even if formalism failed, why would that have any implications for Searle's claim that syntax is not sufficient for semantics?
review the material I quoted from the Wikipedia article:"According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other contensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't 'about' anything at all. They are syntactic forms whose shapes and locations have no meaning unless they are given an interpretation (or semantics)."
in what way does that contradict the claim that syntax is not sufficient for semantics?
Joe -- Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ http://what-am-i.net @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ ========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/