Path: ...!news.misty.com!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 09:48:21 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 149 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 16:48:22 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="822a7b45c10435b9354ed3bfb60d5b64"; logging-data="3701053"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19U9SGS39m0gtavuDjN7Jfb" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:FT7jT3oUwL6+t23vNCR1tmwxmOA= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 7650 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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer