Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 17:02:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e25eac30415eb75101e6e8af05c3a40d6ea8dbda@i2pn2.org>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org> <v67i45$6keq$1@solani.org>
 <v67j9a$2vtu0$2@dont-email.me> <v67jvc$6l2j$1@solani.org>
 <v67mbp$349l4$1@dont-email.me>
 <4394939716c6c6d2ed1fa9b5a269ed261768914e@i2pn2.org>
 <v67ono$34d9q$1@dont-email.me>
 <ba31e5eebae5a2b987f1ff1ec5886f00f59dc3b5@i2pn2.org>
 <v69b2t$3chpq$1@dont-email.me>
 <5e4fb6d29fbd03c807c9a8d4140f807a44c29cb9@i2pn2.org>
 <v69k46$3duna$1@dont-email.me>
 <49291bd9f18eaf11097b6a26f062f54b7f4d6fa9@i2pn2.org>
 <v69pca$3eq6r$1@dont-email.me>
 <7e4f146addad55792c0f18ab92d2092ebcc5dbfd@i2pn2.org>
 <v69scb$3fc2r$1@dont-email.me>
 <6e51f0e94c1e00fcaec8897b4374547bfa2d2be1@i2pn2.org>
 <v6aeup$3lj41$1@dont-email.me>
 <b47ba0b985bb7a89548bd47c0f86d8693241f892@i2pn2.org>
 <v6c0lk$3skuk$3@dont-email.me>
 <e474b5f0ed67e56f6da43e7c0deb62c76342933a@i2pn2.org>
 <v6c2td$3skuk$4@dont-email.me>
 <51aecdca646d067438e9cd44b11cb8bf9be933f2@i2pn2.org>
 <v6c69s$3u2mj$2@dont-email.me>
 <ffea314eb0c48ef1c7c52e41bbe5e596252363c9@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cajn$3uu9o$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 21:02:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2381982"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v6cajn$3uu9o$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7938
Lines: 171

On 7/6/24 4:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2024 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/6/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> You have ignored my reference to a book that was classified
>>> by the Library of Congress as possibly true that says anyone
>>> reading this book *is* the one and only creator of the universe.
>>
>> The Library of Congress makes no such determinations. The authors 
>> provide the classifications.
>>
> 
> What is your source of this, I found a source that seem to conflict.
> https://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/lcc/PDFs%20of%20slides/12-3%20handout.pdf

So, what page takes about the classificaiton of the type of material.

That who document is about assigning "Literary Author Numbers"

> 
>> The fact that such a statement is a logical impossiblity if one 
>> accepts that there is a shared reality (as that realith existed before 
>> the reader did) makes it absurd.
>>
> 
> Yes and when one accept that numbers do not exist it
> logically follows that there is no such thing as arithmetic.

So, you really think that is a correct model of reality?

Pity you.

> 
>>>
>>> *Anyone seeking the truth cannot simply ignore that*
>>> You have not seen this actual book, yet I have several copies.
>>
>> You would, and it fits in your pattern of logic.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> comes time for the judgement of your life, you will be found 
>>>>>> lacking in the faith needed to redeam you from your failings, and 
>>>>>> thus spend your eternity seperated from him, in the place, best 
>>>>>> described in human terms, as the eternal fires of Hell.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Faith is not the same thing as the mere presumption that
>>>>> beliefs often are. Faith is the substance of things hoped for
>>>>> not the presumption that we are correct thus others are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Right, but since you do not have a faith in the actual creator of 
>>>> the universe, you are unable to avail yourself of his grace to let 
>>>> you have the relationship you need with him, so will forever be 
>>>> outside of him.
>>>>
>>>> You may not belevie that now, but if you honestly look at the 
>>>> outcome of your beliefs and your life, you should be able to see 
>>>> that they don't have any better foundation. I KNOW that what I 
>>>> believe is true, because I have put it to the test, and he has 
>>>> proven himself faithful.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are not convinced, which is the more likely origin of the 
>>>>>> world, and which decision has the more impact on what you should do.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I am testing the hypothesis that I was deceived by Satan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every translation of the bible agrees that God himself would
>>>>> be this deceiver.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to 
>>>>> believe what is false,
>>>>> https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Thessalonians%202:11
>>>>
>>>> Read the context. Man because of our sin, can not directly see God 
>>>> at work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That the bible says God himself would send a delusion cannot
>>> possibly have any context where God himself is not a deceiver.
>>> That every translation agrees is strong evidence that it is not
>>> a translation error.
>>
>> But if you look at the context, the delusion is the delusion created 
>> by ones own denial of the law of God, so he sends them what they 
>> wanted, by their own choice, so God is not "a deceiver" but only 
>> allows people who have chosen to be decieved to be deceived.
>>
> 
> He has abolished the law with its commandments and
> ordinances, so that he might create in himself one
> new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A15&version=NRSVA

But From Matthew 5:17-18 not one piece of the law has passed away.

So, only those that have been made "new" have had that law abolished.

Remember, you are quoting a message to those that were saved, to those 
that still were lost.

> 
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have ALWAYS only wanted what-ever the truth turns out to be
>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>
>>>> But you ignore that truth when it shows itself to you.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *THE TRUTH OF THIS SEEMS INFALLIBLY CORRECT*
>>>>> That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
>>>>> its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
>>>>> truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
>>>>> is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
>>>>> using formal language and formalized natural language.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Meaning that all of math and logic that disagrees are WRONG*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, that is just your own deception. The human use of language 
>>>> just isn't that good and has flaws in it.
>>>>
>>> My system does not get stuck like the Tarski system.
>>> As you already know there cannot possibly be any sequence
>>> of truth preserving operations to LP or ~LP proves that
>>> my system overcomes Tarski's proof.
>>
>> So, what is the value of True(L, x) where x in L is the statement
>> ~True(L,x)
>>
> 
> This is simply the Prolog model where true
> means provable and false means not provable.
> Conventional false means ~x is provable.

Which only handles the most simple of logic, which is still your failing.

Your logic only works in system that simple.

> 
> True(L,x)  only when  x is true, otherwise false.
> True(L,~x) only when ~x is true, otherwise false.

Bu

> 
> x = ~True(L, x)
> True(L, x) is false.
> True(L, ~x) is false.

But if True(L, x) is false
then x = ~True(L, x) is true.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========