Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 12:08:55 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 140
Message-ID: <v1v9n7$32bn$1@dont-email.me>
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> <v1sm7a$3cno9$1@dont-email.me> <v1t97l$3gu9t$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 11:08:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1561cf947d67a0ca7b653e1332cd608a";
	logging-data="100727"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+5eb1XTS2bG+3UU2QvSly8"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FzFp3Or4qbibKm5Tv+WJjgWY7qc=
Bytes: 7567

On 2024-05-13 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/13/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-12 18:36:22 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> And also that every claim from which an epistemological antinomy could
>> be proven must be untrue.
>> 
> 
> There are no sequence of truth preserving operations from expressions 
> that have been stipulated to be true that derive X or ~X when X is an
> epistemological antinomy, thus X is rejected as not a truth-bearer.

That depends on stipulations. If someone stipulates enough then
it is possible to derive an epistemological antimomy.

-- 
Mikko