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 --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic
 method
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 22:31:28 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1uie1$v37v$16@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$1@dont-email.me> <v1ub9v$v37v$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v1ugp1$3tnr6$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 02:31:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1019135"; 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: <v1ugp1$3tnr6$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 15683
Lines: 323

On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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}
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========