Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning
Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 22:41:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 308
Message-ID: <v1s25g$38fdl$1@dont-email.me>
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$1@dont-email.me> <v1rhqr$qvg2$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v1rj05$31n8h$2@dont-email.me> <v1rkt4$qvg2$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v1rlj7$324ln$2@dont-email.me> <v1rn85$qvg3$12@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 05:41:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="822a7b45c10435b9354ed3bfb60d5b64";
	logging-data="3423669"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19j0M1iiNf66818TjJHEZMP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pMeBWxP94XEthmBCaJhKbM3ztcY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1rn85$qvg3$12@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 14002

On 5/12/2024 7:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/12/24 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/12/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/12/24 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> 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?
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========