Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v1ul1s$v37v$17@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 23:16:12 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v1ul1s$v37v$17@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$1@dont-email.me> <v1uie1$v37v$16@i2pn2.org> <v1ujff$3uaee$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 03:16:12 -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: <v1ujff$3uaee$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 16991 Lines: 342 On 5/13/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========