Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko 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: References: 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