Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning
Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 20:35:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1rn85$qvg3$12@i2pn2.org>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <v1mnuj$lbo5$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v1mp1l$1qr5e$4@dont-email.me> <v1mpsh$lbo4$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v1ms2o$1rkit$1@dont-email.me> <v1prtb$2jtsh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qjb1$2ouob$2@dont-email.me> <v1qnfv$2q0t7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qtnk$2rdui$2@dont-email.me> <v1qvku$qvg3$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v1r0fg$2rva6$1@dont-email.me> <v1r1ci$qvg3$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v1r276$2shtf$1@dont-email.me> <v1r932$qvg3$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v1rdr5$30gkq$1@dont-email.me> <v1rggn$qvg3$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v1rhff$31ege$1@dont-email.me> <v1rhqr$qvg2$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v1rj05$31n8h$2@dont-email.me> <v1rkt4$qvg2$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v1rlj7$324ln$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 00:35:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="884227"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v1rlj7$324ln$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 12330
Lines: 267

On 5/12/24 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/12/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/12/24 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/24 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2024 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/24 5:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 3:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to Formal Systems are the axioms of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system and the most primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uninterpreted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axioms are called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and false in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of. I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you need to be VERY clear about what you claim 
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be "usually spoken of" and what is your unique contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You then need to show how your contribution isn't in 
>>>>>>>>>>>> conflict with the classical parts, but follows within its 
>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to say that something in the classical theory is 
>>>>>>>>>>>> not actually true, then you need to show how removing that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> piece doesn't affect the system. This seems to be a weak 
>>>>>>>>>>>> point of yours, you think you can change a system, and not 
>>>>>>>>>>>> show that the system can still exist as it was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms. It 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference
>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps may sometimes be required. It is also not exactly the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because some proofs are not restricted to truth preserving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what effect does that difference have?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem here to accept that some truths are based on an 
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of operations, while you admit that proofs 
>>>>>>>>>>>> are finite sequences, but it seems you still assert that all 
>>>>>>>>>>>> truths must be provable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I did not use the term "provable" or "proofs" these only 
>>>>>>>>>>> apply to
>>>>>>>>>>> finite sequences. {derived from applying truth preserving 
>>>>>>>>>>> operations}
>>>>>>>>>>> can involve infinite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But if true can come out of an infinite sequences, and some 
>>>>>>>>>> need such an infinite sequence, but proof requires a finite 
>>>>>>>>>> sequence, that shows that there will exists some statements 
>>>>>>>>>> are true, but not provable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for 
>>>>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we look at the way that {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>>>>>>>> actually works, then all epistemological antinomies are 
>>>>>>>>>>> simply untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And Godel would agree to that. You just don't understand what 
>>>>>>>>>> that line 14 means.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It can be proven in a finite sequence of steps that
>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========