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,comp.theory
Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning
Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 19:02:51 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1rhqr$qvg2$3@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$1@dont-email.me> <v1r932$qvg3$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v1rdr5$30gkq$1@dont-email.me> <v1rggn$qvg3$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v1rhff$31ege$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 23:02:51 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="884226"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v1rhff$31ege$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9126
Lines: 187

On 5/12/24 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/12/2024 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/12/24 5:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2024 3:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> So that directly contradicts what Gödel said in the quote thus proving
>>> that Gödel and Tarski were both fundamentally incorrect in the basic
>>> foundation of their work.
>>>
>>
>> Where does he say wha tyo claim?
>>
>> He says that it can be *USED* for a similar proof.
>>
> 
> *IT CANNOT BE USED IN ANY UNDECIDABILITY PROOF HE IS CLUELESS*
> *IT CANNOT BE USED IN ANY UNDECIDABILITY PROOF HE IS CLUELESS*
> *IT CANNOT BE USED IN ANY UNDECIDABILITY PROOF HE IS CLUELESS*
> *IT CANNOT BE USED IN ANY UNDECIDABILITY PROOF HE IS CLUELESS*
> 
> 

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========