Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<7Oqdncm0A8Uw1Gr4nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:51:09 +0000 Subject: Re: ZFC solution to incorrect questions: reject them --discourse context -- Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy References: <usq5uq$e4sh$1@dont-email.me> <usvoep$1rdem$2@dont-email.me> <usvrop$1sokc$5@i2pn2.org> <usvs99$1ru1i$5@dont-email.me> <usvu7u$1sokd$10@i2pn2.org> <ut027d$1tcdv$1@dont-email.me> <ut06ub$1tev8$3@i2pn2.org> <ut079j$1u3jv$7@dont-email.me> <ut18pr$27u86$2@dont-email.me> <ut1mn9$2afad$7@dont-email.me> <ut24je$1vtvi$6@i2pn2.org> <ut25ro$2e06s$1@dont-email.me> <ut26nf$1vtvj$10@i2pn2.org> <ut276t$2e06s$6@dont-email.me> <ut28ab$1vtvj$18@i2pn2.org> <ut28qp$2e06s$12@dont-email.me> <ut2bf3$1vtvi$15@i2pn2.org> <ut2bs2$2f6aj$2@dont-email.me> <ut2h69$1vtvi$18@i2pn2.org> <ut2j5t$2gkoj$2@dont-email.me> <ut2k2h$1vtvj$26@i2pn2.org> <ut2kv3$2grvf$2@dont-email.me> <ut32se$2n598$3@dont-email.me> <ut3514$2n0uu$7@dont-email.me> <ut36tn$2notf$1@dont-email.me> <ut3a9n$2nm61$5@dont-email.me> <ut4eb8$23135$1@i2pn2.org> <ut4em7$2v4ce$3@dont-email.me> <ut4om5$23hsb$1@i2pn2.org> <ut4ps6$31jue$1@dont-email.me> <ut728u$3jbb8$1@dont-email.me> <ut78bh$3jbbs$7@dont-email.me> <ut78qb$3knkh$1@dont-email.me> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:50:53 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <ut78qb$3knkh$1@dont-email.me> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <7Oqdncm0A8Uw1Gr4nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 115 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-qke9x+4O38zJoJGwngnjstxJM6oQ7aNrkn+7EpDVIzeGD1VxzEZ3M1mFVUewnGd8kbMbw47IXkCE4E8!gUwhKzT5UT8dcQxcPgn51VvOqU+7LQ08urGLiKfxOqQiSUB2OTJgV3wmshr0KphwPWqUh9Ha8dza!Ig== X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 6668 > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> .... You know, the field, of, formal methods, and particularly here, "the terminal in the interminable", all the issues involved and resolved in the supposition and dispatch and resolution and what can't be logical paradox, it's of interest. You guys' love spats though, it's more like, "get a room". That the classical is sort of singular, and, there's a sort of super-classical the multiplicity, has that here, for models of computation and models of knowledge, and certification of the results as it were, "proof", in theory, has pretty much that if there's thrashing and flailing it's not being done correctly, pretty much has that you have to get above this stuff, if there's not something _new_ in the post, it's _noise_, if there's not a proper novel, derivative statement, it's not _signal_, _information_. About information and free information in physics, and models of computation, which work on information, that their input and output is work and information, has that actors and agents can use information and perspective, to effect their own inputs, and besides the Aristotle's entropy and Leibniz' entropy, and the source and/or sink of destiny and these kinds of things, makes for the old "Scylla and Charybdis" bit: "keep it in the middle". Now it's established that ZFC includes a restriction of comprehension, and that somebody like Mirimanoff introduced what became the Axiom of Regularity, and it's an opinion and a stipulation and there are other, there are the others, that if you really want to know then it involves learning about Mirimanoff's, or, your own, "extra-ordinary", "l'extraordinaire", because otherwise trying to stretch the limits of theory within the limits of the ordinary theory, results that "the theories the theories the theories: meta-fragment theory", either is or isn't a theory, and it's true. It's true that some people don't know that ordinals and sets are fundamentally different and though that they have ready models of the initial that build infinite limits and completions in terms of each other, that the theory of "the universe of the logical objects", has that it's matters of perspective, and perspicuity, for universals and particulars and these kinds of things, and type theory and "inverting the diamond", the universe of relations of type, it starts being easier to have critical analysis always included instead of picking a fixed course when neither will do. Maybe it would help to introduce an "Aristotle's demon", what he does is arbitrarily re-orders and disarrays and sequence of syllogisms, so that of course only the relevant result coherent, and what was in any way plainly dependent on contradiction or not compounded the induction by all matters of deduction, is not constructivists and results not intuitionist. Now, one might aver, "there's no Aristotle's demon and there's no Maxwell's demon", yet, yet it's rather provable, or not, one way or the other, and, anybody who makes and stays the course between the rock and the hard place, is highly dependent that they do and don't exist. I.e., the idea is, "there's no Aristotle's demon and there's no Maxwell's demon", but, anybody who thinks about it sort of rather is their own Aristotle's angel and Maxwell's angel. Now, I've just kind of invented this idea of "Aristotle's demon", but the idea is that the apparatus and mechanics of robust theorem-proving depend on it not mattering whether it exists, or not. In these sorts cases, the "quasi-modal", is yet a mode, just as classical theory is just a singularity, so, it's called critical reasoning, and, often enough it's the development of the dialectic to maintain the development of a dialectic, that otherwise results these sorts, ..., kook fights, that result poisoning the well, tragedizing the commons, when here we have a free theory where "Aristotle's demon can't destroy comprehensive critical categorical closure". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon Which the quasi-modal is not. So, Aristotle's demon, or Aristotle's gremlin, here is a concept that takes, for example, any sorts plain fallacious rhetoric, on its own, and results for example "must both be wrong". Thus it is upon you to always be making work for Aristotle's gremlin, for Maxwell's will do none.