# Do Goedel's incompleteness theorems set absolute limits on the ability of the brain to express and communicate mental concepts verifiably?

*Neuroquantology*2:60-100 (2004)

**Abstract**

Classical interpretations of Goedels formal reasoning, and of his conclusions, implicitly imply that mathematical languages are essentially incomplete, in the sense that the truth of some arithmetical propositions of any formal mathematical language, under any interpretation, is, both, non-algorithmic, and essentially unverifiable. However, a language of general, scientific, discourse, which intends to mathematically express, and unambiguously communicate, intuitive concepts that correspond to scientific investigations, cannot allow its mathematical propositions to be interpreted ambiguously. Such a language must, therefore, define mathematical truth verifiably. We consider a constructive interpretation of classical, Tarskian, truth, and of Goedel's reasoning, under which any formal system of Peano Arithmetic---classically accepted as the foundation of all our mathematical
Languages---is verifiably complete in the above sense. We show how some paradoxical concepts of Quantum mechanics can, then, be expressed, and interpreted, naturally under a constructive definition of mathematical truth.

**Categories**

**PhilPapers/Archive ID**

ANADGI

**Revision history**

Archival date: 2018-05-31

View upload history

View upload history

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA

The Truth Assignments That Differentiate Human Reasoning From Mechanistic Reasoning: The Evidence-Based Argument for Lucas' Goedelian Thesis.Bhupinder Singh Anand - 2016 -

*Cognitive Systems Research*40:35-45.**Added to PP index**

2018-05-31

**Total views**

56 ( #40,804 of 50,115 )

**Recent downloads (6 months)**

16 ( #32,860 of 50,115 )

How can I increase my downloads?

**Downloads since first upload**

*This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.*