On 4-8-2009 21:10, andrel wrote:

> Only from the perspective of an outsider. Knowledge is not objective, I 
> understand why you would like it to be so, but alas...

Isn't there a scene in Goedel Escher Bach where something is proven but 
then the focus turns on the proof rules, because they must first be 
agreed on. But that requires that you have to agree on how to make rules 
  proof rules etc.

Which a.o. shows that you don't have to agree on what constitutes a 
proof, you can always go to a meta level. That even works for Euclid. I 
think it is clear that somewhere on the third meta level we don't agree.

Post a reply to this message