Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning
Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 16:33:37 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1r932$qvg3$8@i2pn2.org>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <v1mnuj$lbo5$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v1mp1l$1qr5e$4@dont-email.me> <v1mpsh$lbo4$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v1ms2o$1rkit$1@dont-email.me> <v1prtb$2jtsh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qjb1$2ouob$2@dont-email.me> <v1qnfv$2q0t7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qtnk$2rdui$2@dont-email.me> <v1qvku$qvg3$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v1r0fg$2rva6$1@dont-email.me> <v1r1ci$qvg3$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v1r276$2shtf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 20:33:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="884227"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v1r276$2shtf$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7669
Lines: 150

On 5/12/24 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/12/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/12/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the most 
>>>>>>>>>>>> primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually 
>>>>>>>>>>>> means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep understanding. 
>>>>>>>> Only
>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that includes
>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations between
>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about uninterpreted
>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are 
>>>>>> called
>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and false in
>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no interpretation
>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>
>>>> Which means you need to be VERY clear about what you claim to be 
>>>> "usually spoken of" and what is your unique contribution.
>>>>
>>>> You then need to show how your contribution isn't in conflict with 
>>>> the classical parts, but follows within its definitions.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to say that something in the classical theory is not 
>>>> actually true, then you need to show how removing that piece doesn't 
>>>> affect the system. This seems to be a weak point of yours, you think 
>>>> you can change a system, and not show that the system can still 
>>>> exist as it was.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms. It is not
>>>>> exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of inference
>>>>> steps may sometimes be required. It is also not exactly the same
>>>>> because some proofs are not restricted to truth preserving operations.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, what effect does that difference have?
>>>>
>>>> You seem here to accept that some truths are based on an infinite 
>>>> sequence of operations, while you admit that proofs are finite 
>>>> sequences, but it seems you still assert that all truths must be 
>>>> provable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did not use the term "provable" or "proofs" these only apply to
>>> finite sequences. {derived from applying truth preserving operations}
>>> can involve infinite sequences.
>>
>> But if true can come out of an infinite sequences, and some need such 
>> an infinite sequence, but proof requires a finite sequence, that shows 
>> that there will exists some statements are true, but not provable.
>>
>>>
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a 
>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>
>>> When we look at the way that {true on the basis of meaning}
>>> actually works, then all epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>
>> And Godel would agree to that. You just don't understand what that 
>> line 14 means.
>>
> 
> It can be proven in a finite sequence of steps that
> epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
> 
> 
> 

So?

All you have done is proven that you intend to beat this dead straw 
horse to smithereens, proving that you don't know what you are talking 
about.

Claiming Godel wrong because you interpret a statement of his 
incorrectly just proves how stupid YOU are, and the fact you continue 
after being told you were wrong just shows that you are nothing but an 
ignorant pathological liar.


Godel's "G" for is proof is NOT an epistemological antinomy, and saying 
it is, even after being corrected so many time just proves that you are 
nothing but a pathetic hypocritical ignorant pathological lying idiot.

If you want to show that it is, show where in the proof he uses a 
statement that is a epistomological antinomy in a logic statement that 
assuems it has a logical value. You failure just shows that you are 
talking about something you have no idea what it is.