Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 18:18:02 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <44045521a1d427b581c2aa7b6e6da66614310453@i2pn2.org>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me>
 <6272b80d0aeaca324ac8624dce71945edeb59092@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qjg5$1tedb$17@dont-email.me>
 <2e642af254f6140ce8711da64f31d4fd8467d58b@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qkeb$1tedb$19@dont-email.me>
 <f883e0312dcbce8663eaa445348e225687d83959@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qm86$1tedb$22@dont-email.me>
 <a2c1ed800e02c5e922df63241206c00d855680d5@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qncv$1tedb$25@dont-email.me>
 <2d7efb21a7466aa56ed7be937da998852f6882af@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qon8$1tedb$27@dont-email.me>
 <e452294ec866e3297f9bfec55eff17db4a347a25@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qpju$1tedb$30@dont-email.me>
 <1ec5e64194f4e88998b8d462497e3a378e1d91fd@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qsn9$1tedb$33@dont-email.me>
 <c094e38b272f3522f77a85301391ec1d3ae399a9@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qv6c$1tedb$34@dont-email.me>
 <8afe6c7a528a79eb88aa4754f84d524134d83cc6@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r2nc$1tedb$37@dont-email.me>
 <7b3df4b2e110cce7c51ca2ce0b82b26531030402@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r4dp$1tedb$39@dont-email.me>
 <1b66f6b4e791240d42b21207e2c0eaa9362932b8@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r5ok$1tedb$41@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 22:18:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2897736"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v9r5ok$1tedb$41@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5259
Lines: 100

On 8/17/24 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/17/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/17/24 5:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/24 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is more of a somewhat poorly defined process than it is a 
>>>>> defined term.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thinks IGNORANT you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The vast disagreement on very important  truths
>>> such as climate change and election denial seems
>>> to prove that the notion of truth lacks a process
>>> sufficiently well defined that it is accessible
>>> to most.
>>>
>>
>> But has nothing to do with what Philosophy thinks of as truth, but of 
>> people being closed minded
>>
> 
> The process is not sufficiently well defined such
> that divergence from truth smacks people in the face.

Nope, that isn't the problem, it has nothing to do with Logic or 
Philosophy, by with Psychology, so trying to improve logic or Philosophy 
will not help with it,

When people ignore "facts", you can't help with logic.

YOU prove that point,

> 
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are generally a learned-by-rote bunch. Philosophy of
>>>>>>> logic delves into this more deeply the problem. The
>>>>>>> learned-by-rote bunch assumes that learning by rote makes
>>>>>>> them philosophers. They tend to push actual philosophers
>>>>>>> out by denigrating them in the philosophy of logic spaces.
>>>>>>> Wittgenstein had no patience with them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you have your never-learned-because-of-ignorance ideas that 
>>>>>> are just incoherent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
>>>>> and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
>>>>
>>>> Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wittgenstein said the same thing.
>>> Try to name any logician that has any history of
>>> being open to critiques of the received view and
>>> you will come up empty.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your trying to ally with Wittgenstein doesn't really help you, as 
>>>>>> his ideas were not always accepted, and considered prone to error, 
>>>>>> not unlike your own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
>>>>> and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
>>>>
>>>> Your problem is you reject that logic HAS rules that need to be 
>>>> followed, 
>>>
>>> Just like I said a learned-by-rote view.
>>> Not any what happens if we change this rule? POV
>>
>> Note, I said has rules, and different forms of logic have different 
>> rules, something that seems foreign to you.
>>
> 
> We change one key rule of logic and then all of the
> logical paradoxes suddenly disappear and logic becomes
> complete, coherent and consistent.
> 

And limited, too limited to be useful.

Of course, your mind can't handle the compliated logic, so you don't 
understand that.

My guess is that you logic just can't handle supporting the properties 
of the Natural Numbers, that or it doesn't get you the clearity you want 
because it still supports truth by an infinite chain that becomes 
unprovable.

On the other hand, I think you just don't understand the nature of what 
you are talking about, and I suspect what you are thinking has already 
been thought of before.