Path: ...!news.misty.com!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Mon, 13 May 2024 09:48:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <v1t97l$3gu9t$5@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> <v1sm7a$3cno9$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 16:48:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="822a7b45c10435b9354ed3bfb60d5b64";
	logging-data="3701053"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19U9SGS39m0gtavuDjN7Jfb"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FT7jT3oUwL6+t23vNCR1tmwxmOA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1sm7a$3cno9$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7650

On 5/13/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

There are no sequence of truth preserving operations from expressions 
that have been stipulated to be true that derive X or ~X when X is an
epistemological antinomy, thus X is rejected as not a truth-bearer.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer