Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 13:09:02 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <v1vd7u$3qdk$1@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> <v1qjb1$2ouob$2@dont-email.me> <v1qtnk$2rdui$2@dont-email.me> <v1skbr$3caip$1@dont-email.me> <v1t8d5$3gu9t$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 12:09:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1561cf947d67a0ca7b653e1332cd608a";
	logging-data="125364"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19nZqQtndR6dBKc2GzaZFqU"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UE18oDAbWaKrCZwDM1to46GTOy8=
Bytes: 5578

On 2024-05-13 14:34:12 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/13/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-12 17:19:48 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> 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}.
>> 
>> What matters is that you are not talking about those things as they
>> are usually spoken of. The consequence is that nobody is going to
>> understand you, and the consequence of that probably is that you
>> cannot contribute.
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Most of that doesn't require any stipulations about semantics but
>> can be done with finite strings and their relations. Semantics is
>> only needed to choose interesting problems and, if a problem can
>> be solved, to interprete the solution.
> 
> The only way that a system of formalized natural language can
> possibly know that {dogs} <are> {animals} is that it must be told.

Correct.

> See also Davidson's truth conditional semantics.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics

That page does not say much and most of what it says is about defects
of that approach.

> The only way that "dogs are animals" acquires semantic
> meaning is the stipulated relation: {dogs} <are> {animals}.

That assumption only relates the two terms but does not say anyting
else about their meanings. It permits to infer that features of some
dogs are features of some animals and that features or all animanls
are featrues of all dogs but says nothing abut what reatures dogs
and animals can have.

-- 
Mikko