Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 12:23:54 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <v1sm7a$3cno9$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 11:23:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="af833f273ffd7dd4a7bac54f0aad4cae";
	logging-data="3563273"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+OAOIQdJ1VbFmfyRyQuUbK"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T8IHYS/rr/zoum47Au5cCZrdL9w=
Bytes: 6865

On 2024-05-12 18:36:22 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

And also that every claim from which an epistemological antinomy could
be proven must be untrue.

-- 
Mikko