Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Analytical truth redefined so that Quine can understand that bachelors are unmarried Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:35:39 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 125 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:35:41 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="17ec9398ed80e19bde6326f5400a6c92"; logging-data="321928"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18/0SUfwKgdJOEeiSy/O0Vv" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:nmhxQEenqWbZClJywhSbA75yqFg= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6124 On 3/18/2024 11:33 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 03/18/2024 03:30 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2021-03-27 14:54:31 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> Most people construe the term "absolute truth" as necessarily coming >>> from the mind of God, thus atheists reject absolute truth. Philosophy >>> leaves religion out of it and says that analytical truth can be >>> verified on the basis of its meaning. >>> >>> Because Quine had such a hard time understanding that bachelors are >>> unmarried in his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" I have adapted the >>> definition of analytical truth so that it can be more directly divided >>> from other forms of truth: >> >> It is a sin to say anything untrue about other people. >> >>> (1) Expressions of language that are defined to be true and >> >> Truth is not a matter of definition. >> >>> (2) Expressions of language that have been derived on the basis of >>> applying truth preserving operations. >> >> Only affirmative sentences and only if derived from true sentences. >> >> Note that the word "sentence" has different meanings in comp.thery >> and sci.lang. In the former (and in sci.logic) it usually excludes >> all but affirmative sentences. >> > > Nah, an idea of "absolute truth" can arrive from simply > considering a theory where there's a language that only > has truisms, a "Comenius language", In other words only semantic tautologies that are self-evidently true are included. In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence > then it results that > the Russell set is the same as the Liar sentence, I don't know what you mean by: "the Russell set" > then that's only a prototype of a first fallacy or > contradiction, then that it provides both all the > cases for forward inference and a case for deductive > inference, at once, together. > Things such as {cats are animals} are stipulated to be true thus can be used as premises to deductive inference such that the conclusion is defined to be a necessary consequence of its premises. This eliminates things such as the principle of explosion. > So, the "metaphysics", of such a thing, and "true theory" > or "a theory of truth", has that it's purely a matter of > reason, then insofar as that both deists and non-deists > "we have a metaphysic, and, deism is super-scientific", > to exclude deism from scientism, while still making it > so that formally both deism and non-deism are irrelevant, > in "a least metaphysics", in a sort of Hegelian approach > and Aristotle would approve, as a Plato's ideal and for > Kant only the sublime Ding-an-Sich, only that much greater > and within itself, this way there can certainly be a theory, > at all, "A Theory", then not so much that we can know it, > but we can ascertain it and attain to it, and it is, > and it's true. > > > I sort of get into this in my podcasts under "Philosophical > Foreground" and some 10,000's posts on sci.logic and so on. > > https youtube /@rossfinlayson > > > If this is an introduction to, "sci.lang", here the > notion is of "a Comenius language", which is a universe > of objects of the theory of language, all true, ..., Yes this seems to be what I am meaning. > then according to comprehension, one excluded, ..., > "elementary primitives of ur-language", > for a course of axiomless natural deduction. > Alternatively every sentence could be construed as an axiom. Or more simply that a set of necessary consequences are derived from stipulated truths. The latter essentially taking on the role of an axiom. > > About the affirmative and negative, negatory, one idea > to consider is that the language actually starts with > all negatory, that just results a structure for affirmatory. > > > When I study English grammar I consider Curme, > and when I diagram its structure it's after Tesniere, > according to the most published book as for a literary > and deconstructive account for its technical content, > or the logico-philosophical, it basically establishes > a space from nothing then also introduces that in > the beginning that there was a word, for the > synthetic/analytic distinction, as a usual holistic > monism, a usual holistic dual monism, and that > technically there's a way to relate that to there > being a teleology and ontology not either void the other. > > That's the point of my most recent podcasts, > re-connecting teleology and ontology, while > the idea of "a Comenius language a universe of > words", or statement, is about any old "A Theory", > at all, with regards to "truth" and "true". > > > Doesn't say what it is - just says that it is. > > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer