@pam69ur,
Wait a second --
Godel does
not actually use the axiom of reducibility as you like to point out. He makes a contention ABOUT the axiom of reducibility, but this contention does not require that it be valid or invalid. I can make an argument about the
proposition of the earth being flat, but the fact that it's round does not affect my argument.
pam69ur wrote:simple colin leslie dean has not presented it to the academic world
no journals
no nothing
he is a no body who preferes to step out side the grove
he believes that the academic world has and should not have a monopoly on truth
Ok, so rather than the academic world you'd rather present it to a bunch of amateurish dilettante hobbyists (like myself) on an online forum? How does that advance your career or recognition? If you're interested in your conclusions actually resonating in the math and philosophy worlds, you need to present your arguments to them, not to us. Most of us are not professional philosophers, and of those here who are very few are logicians. So you're devoting effort to a cause that doesn't really matter, because we're not the audience you care about.
I found this discussion elsewhere on the web:
Thought is not in language or images or concepts or anything else - BrainMeta.com Forum
You assert here that all views are meaningless and that language contains no thought. If so, then what are we to make of your
non-mathematical assertions about Godel? If your arguments are solely that he used AR and that he doesn't define truth, those are LOGICAL arguments that can only be presented through this language that you find so bereft of thought.
Incidentally, we ALL know that you are Colin Leslie Dean. I ask you this out of respect for you: speak in the first person, and take both credit and responsibility for your thoughts.