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: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 16:24:21 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ffea314eb0c48ef1c7c52e41bbe5e596252363c9@i2pn2.org>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org> <v676rf$2u7lu$1@dont-email.me>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:24:22 -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: <v6c69s$3u2mj$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9325
Lines: 184

On 7/6/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2024 2:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/6/24 2:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2024 1:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The essence of all of this is explained in the great book.
>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/What-Are-You-Doing-Universe/dp/0878770658
>>>>>
>>>>> The original version of this book tells the reader that they
>>>>> themselves are the one and only creator of the universe.
>>>>> The library of congress classifies this book as possible truth
>>>>> Philosophical Anthropology Miscellanea
>>>>>
>>>>> Later versions of this book have an identical body yet come with
>>>>> the caveat this this is a possible truth not a declared fact.
>>>>
>>>> And by promoting such ideas, you show that you do not believe in the 
>>>> actual all powerful God that did create the univesre, and thus whe it 
>>>
>>> I have long since fully understood that beliefs and
>>> disbelief are lies that we tell ourselves. They are
>>> lies because they close the mind to additional information.
>>
>> No, you have fallen for the lie that real truth doesn't exist.
>>
> 
> 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.

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.

> 
> *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.

> 
>>>
>>> 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)

If it is false, then x must be true, and your true predicate just made 
an error.

Your only out is for the True predicate to not BE a predicate, which is 
of course, a contradiction.

> 
> That you simply dismiss this out-of-hand when you already
> know it is true cannot be construed as anything but a lie.

Because you can't answer the question on it, because there isn't one, 
which shows your idea is broken. (or you are just a liar).
> 
>> And, you presume that an "accurate model of the actual world" exists 
>> (or even can exist). The fundamental problem is that we only know of 
>> the world though IMPERFECT observations, and thus can only make an 
>> imperfect model of the world. 
> 
> We perfectly know that kittens are not 15 story office buildings.
> It seems that we perfectly know that no evidence has ever been
> presented that election fraud changed the outcome of the 2020
> presidential election.

But lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, we can say there has been no evidence of sufficient fraud to have 
changed the election, but if your belief system entials that "The 
System" has the power to hid that evidence, you don't need to believe 
that the lack of evidence means anything.

Just like you, they reject the idea that evidence is needed to make claims.

> 
>> Yes, you can do a lot through a known imperfect model, but you need to 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========