Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 17:08:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 205
Message-ID: <v6cf9d$3viun$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org> <v67jvc$6l2j$1@solani.org>
 <v67mbp$349l4$1@dont-email.me>
 <4394939716c6c6d2ed1fa9b5a269ed261768914e@i2pn2.org>
 <v67ono$34d9q$1@dont-email.me>
 <ba31e5eebae5a2b987f1ff1ec5886f00f59dc3b5@i2pn2.org>
 <v69b2t$3chpq$1@dont-email.me>
 <5e4fb6d29fbd03c807c9a8d4140f807a44c29cb9@i2pn2.org>
 <v69k46$3duna$1@dont-email.me>
 <49291bd9f18eaf11097b6a26f062f54b7f4d6fa9@i2pn2.org>
 <v69pca$3eq6r$1@dont-email.me>
 <7e4f146addad55792c0f18ab92d2092ebcc5dbfd@i2pn2.org>
 <v69scb$3fc2r$1@dont-email.me>
 <6e51f0e94c1e00fcaec8897b4374547bfa2d2be1@i2pn2.org>
 <v6aeup$3lj41$1@dont-email.me>
 <b47ba0b985bb7a89548bd47c0f86d8693241f892@i2pn2.org>
 <v6c0lk$3skuk$3@dont-email.me>
 <e474b5f0ed67e56f6da43e7c0deb62c76342933a@i2pn2.org>
 <v6c2td$3skuk$4@dont-email.me>
 <51aecdca646d067438e9cd44b11cb8bf9be933f2@i2pn2.org>
 <v6c69s$3u2mj$2@dont-email.me>
 <ffea314eb0c48ef1c7c52e41bbe5e596252363c9@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cajn$3uu9o$1@dont-email.me>
 <e25eac30415eb75101e6e8af05c3a40d6ea8dbda@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2024 00:08:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9c29ee80738061e83f912864b4700212";
	logging-data="4180951"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+VG/2uOzMeArj/qtxgVxw4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:r4xD/QYT8Bwx6lIOgfe833/3k7I=
In-Reply-To: <e25eac30415eb75101e6e8af05c3a40d6ea8dbda@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9112

On 7/6/2024 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/6/24 4:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/6/2024 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/6/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You have ignored my reference to a book that was classified
>>>> by the Library of Congress as possibly true that says anyone
>>>> reading this book *is* the one and only creator of the universe.
>>>
>>> The Library of Congress makes no such determinations. The authors 
>>> provide the classifications.
>>>
>>
>> What is your source of this, I found a source that seem to conflict.
>> https://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/lcc/PDFs%20of%20slides/12-3%20handout.pdf
> 
> So, what page takes about the classificaiton of the type of material.
> 
> That who document is about assigning "Literary Author Numbers"
> 
>>
>>> The fact that such a statement is a logical impossiblity if one 
>>> accepts that there is a shared reality (as that realith existed 
>>> before the reader did) makes it absurd.
>>>
>>
>> Yes and when one accept that numbers do not exist it
>> logically follows that there is no such thing as arithmetic.
> 
> So, you really think that is a correct model of reality?
> 

I hypothesize possibilities. You pick one guess that you are
right and close your mind.

> Pity you.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> *Anyone seeking the truth cannot simply ignore that*
>>>> You have not seen this actual book, yet I have several copies.
>>>
>>> You would, and it fits in your pattern of logic.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> comes time for the judgement of your life, you will be found 
>>>>>>> lacking in the faith needed to redeam you from your failings, and 
>>>>>>> thus spend your eternity seperated from him, in the place, best 
>>>>>>> described in human terms, as the eternal fires of Hell.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Faith is not the same thing as the mere presumption that
>>>>>> beliefs often are. Faith is the substance of things hoped for
>>>>>> not the presumption that we are correct thus others are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, but since you do not have a faith in the actual creator of 
>>>>> the universe, you are unable to avail yourself of his grace to let 
>>>>> you have the relationship you need with him, so will forever be 
>>>>> outside of him.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may not belevie that now, but if you honestly look at the 
>>>>> outcome of your beliefs and your life, you should be able to see 
>>>>> that they don't have any better foundation. I KNOW that what I 
>>>>> believe is true, because I have put it to the test, and he has 
>>>>> proven himself faithful.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are not convinced, which is the more likely origin of the 
>>>>>>> world, and which decision has the more impact on what you should do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am testing the hypothesis that I was deceived by Satan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every translation of the bible agrees that God himself would
>>>>>> be this deceiver.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them 
>>>>>> to believe what is false,
>>>>>> https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Thessalonians%202:11
>>>>>
>>>>> Read the context. Man because of our sin, can not directly see God 
>>>>> at work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That the bible says God himself would send a delusion cannot
>>>> possibly have any context where God himself is not a deceiver.
>>>> That every translation agrees is strong evidence that it is not
>>>> a translation error.
>>>
>>> But if you look at the context, the delusion is the delusion created 
>>> by ones own denial of the law of God, so he sends them what they 
>>> wanted, by their own choice, so God is not "a deceiver" but only 
>>> allows people who have chosen to be decieved to be deceived.
>>>
>>
>> He has abolished the law with its commandments and
>> ordinances, so that he might create in himself one
>> new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,
>> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A15&version=NRSVA
> 
> But From Matthew 5:17-18 not one piece of the law has passed away.
> 
Until Christ died on the cross.

> So, only those that have been made "new" have had that law abolished.
> 
> Remember, you are quoting a message to those that were saved, to those 
> that still were lost.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have ALWAYS only wanted what-ever the truth turns out to be
>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you ignore that truth when it shows itself to you.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *THE TRUTH OF THIS SEEMS INFALLIBLY CORRECT*
>>>>>> That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
>>>>>> its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
>>>>>> truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
>>>>>> is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
>>>>>> using formal language and formalized natural language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Meaning that all of math and logic that disagrees are WRONG*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, that is just your own deception. The human use of language 
>>>>> just isn't that good and has flaws in it.
>>>>>
>>>> My system does not get stuck like the Tarski system.
>>>> As you already know there cannot possibly be any sequence
>>>> of truth preserving operations to LP or ~LP proves that
>>>> my system overcomes Tarski's proof.
>>>
>>> So, what is the value of True(L, x) where x in L is the statement
>>> ~True(L,x)
>>>
>>
>> This is simply the Prolog model where true
>> means provable and false means not provable.
>> Conventional false means ~x is provable.
> 
> Which only handles the most simple of logic, which is still your failing.
> 

The essential architecture where true means provable
and false means unprovable can be applied to a system
that simultaneously has an unlimited orders of logic.
0,1,2,...N all at the same time.

> Your logic only works in system that simple.
> 
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========