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: Analytic Expressions of language not linked to their semantic
 meaning are simply untrue
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 12:06:15 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9d7f02ce4b72af3d518594b5446d4fe8b19fbd6d@i2pn2.org>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <v8a4vf$uhll$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8aqh7$11ivs$1@dont-email.me> <v8cr4g$1gk19$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8dinp$1kii7$1@dont-email.me> <v8hv72$2mmsq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8iisj$2qetj$1@dont-email.me> <v8kuhb$3d5q8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lc7p$3f6vr$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 16:06:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1329218"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v8lc7p$3f6vr$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4326
Lines: 76

On 8/3/24 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/3/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-02 12:19:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 8/2/2024 1:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-31 14:46:17 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-30 13:40:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The truth about every expression of language that can be known
>>>>>>>>> to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
>>>>>>>>> that a lack of connection simply means untrue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does that really mean something? If the significance of the lack of
>>>>>>>> connection is restricted to sentences where the connection exists
>>>>>>>> then it seems that you are talking about nothing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>>>>>> I had to redefine the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic
>>>>>>> distinction because Quine convinced most everyone that this
>>>>>>> distinction does not exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You cannot redefine side wihout redefining the other side and the
>>>>>> distinction itself. Is your redefinition equivalent to the one
>>>>>> at https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/ or did
>>>>>> you find out that that distincition is not the one that exists?
>>>>>
>>>>> Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood
>>>>> that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
>>>>> (~Married + Adult + Male).
>>>>
>>>> It is not a good idea to lie about other people.
>>>>
>>>> When reqding Quine, you should ask yourself why your presentation
>>>> is much less convincing than Quine's.
>>>
>>> Try and show the details of how I am incorrect.
>>
>> What you said (quoted above) about Quine is insulting and unjustified,
>> which alone is wrong.
>>
> 
> The bottom line here is that every objection that he could
> have possibly made is addressed by this augmentation to
> the definition of {analytic truth}
> 
> *Original definition* of {Analytic truth}
> Every expression of (formal or natural language) that is
> true on the basis of its meaning...
> 
> *Is augmented by this*
> within a system of reasoning is only true when this
> expression is linked by truth preserving operations to
> its meaning within this system using this language.
> 
> The superset of all of these systems that contains all
> analytic truth is called {the accurate model of the actual world}.
> 
> 
> 
And so you agree that Godel's G is True in PA.


And, your last statement is just rubbish as many system don't actually 
talk about the "actual world" but theoretical worlds with no connnection 
to our own, and an "accurate model" of the actual world is impossible, 
as that would require that would require the precise measurement of 
every aspect of it, which appears impossible due to the limitiations 
imposed by quantum mechanics.

Sorry, you logic is just based on a clearly incorrect model of logic, 
and the world.