Path: ...!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: Wed, 15 May 2024 09:27:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 200
Message-ID: <v22gos$tjgs$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>
 <v1t97l$3gu9t$5@dont-email.me> <v1v9n7$32bn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1vt8t$7eqc$2@dont-email.me> <v21sb5$p5sc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 16:27:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0b1a5f306bf9a6832a28841b3fc547c1";
	logging-data="970268"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/OyySn5gT29UOPctaVCGOa"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:N8D6Kc4qBrzN3QeNWgoZ0qm4NVY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v21sb5$p5sc$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9986

On 5/15/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-14 14:42:36 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 5/14/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-13 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That depends on stipulations. If someone stipulates enough then
>>> it is possible to derive an epistemological antimomy.
>>>
>>
>> An accurate model of all of the general knowledge of the actual world.
>> Expressions that are stipulated to be true must actually be true.
> 
> Does that mean that everything uncertain is excluded from "general
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========