Comment Re:Doable. (Score 1) 742
Demonstrating an inconsistent formal system on a computer is dependent on you programming the meaning of symbols in a way that contradicts our interpretation of them. It is a semiotic trick. Your theorem prover does not distinguish "peanut butter sandwich" from "false".
From an ontological perspective, it is still a consistent system. For example, suppose we were to discover such a formal system in nature; if we were to conclude it was inconsistent it would be based on a misinterpretation of the axioms in the system based on preconceived notions of the symbols involved. In the end, the formal system will be consistent and will always provide you with the same output given the same input.
From an ontological perspective, it is still a consistent system. For example, suppose we were to discover such a formal system in nature; if we were to conclude it was inconsistent it would be based on a misinterpretation of the axioms in the system based on preconceived notions of the symbols involved. In the end, the formal system will be consistent and will always provide you with the same output given the same input.
