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: Mon, 13 May 2024 07:18:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1ssv3$qvg3$15@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$1@dont-email.me> <v1rhqr$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>
 <v1s25g$38fdl$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 11:18:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="884227"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1s25g$38fdl$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 15204
Lines: 342

On 5/12/24 11:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========