Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 --- Good job Richard !
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 20:29:51 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1ub9v$v37v$1@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$1@dont-email.me> <v1ssv3$qvg3$15@i2pn2.org>
 <v1ta68$3hc9t$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 00:29:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1019135"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v1ta68$3hc9t$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 17982
Lines: 422

On 5/13/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2024 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========