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: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 18:15:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <v9raus$1tedb$46@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <v9qkeb$1tedb$19@dont-email.me>
 <f883e0312dcbce8663eaa445348e225687d83959@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qm86$1tedb$22@dont-email.me>
 <a2c1ed800e02c5e922df63241206c00d855680d5@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qncv$1tedb$25@dont-email.me>
 <2d7efb21a7466aa56ed7be937da998852f6882af@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qon8$1tedb$27@dont-email.me>
 <e452294ec866e3297f9bfec55eff17db4a347a25@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qpju$1tedb$30@dont-email.me>
 <1ec5e64194f4e88998b8d462497e3a378e1d91fd@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qsn9$1tedb$33@dont-email.me>
 <c094e38b272f3522f77a85301391ec1d3ae399a9@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qv6c$1tedb$34@dont-email.me>
 <8afe6c7a528a79eb88aa4754f84d524134d83cc6@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r2nc$1tedb$37@dont-email.me>
 <7b3df4b2e110cce7c51ca2ce0b82b26531030402@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r4dp$1tedb$39@dont-email.me>
 <1b66f6b4e791240d42b21207e2c0eaa9362932b8@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r5ok$1tedb$41@dont-email.me>
 <44045521a1d427b581c2aa7b6e6da66614310453@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r7rj$1tedb$43@dont-email.me>
 <5cf9fc376cc61abc8b6cb5d8631887b48c7d2f0b@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 01:15:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="126bd7503554732891ee2e704ffb1b5d";
	logging-data="2013611"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+JVEl08etohaCC99MQ5aOi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9Mw/AKYM60HIcNOLYegYFM4I3Jk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <5cf9fc376cc61abc8b6cb5d8631887b48c7d2f0b@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6182

On 8/17/2024 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/17/24 6:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/17/2024 5:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/17/24 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/17/24 5:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is more of a somewhat poorly defined process than it is a 
>>>>>>>> defined term.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thinks IGNORANT you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The vast disagreement on very important  truths
>>>>>> such as climate change and election denial seems
>>>>>> to prove that the notion of truth lacks a process
>>>>>> sufficiently well defined that it is accessible
>>>>>> to most.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But has nothing to do with what Philosophy thinks of as truth, but 
>>>>> of people being closed minded
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The process is not sufficiently well defined such
>>>> that divergence from truth smacks people in the face.
>>>
>>> Nope, that isn't the problem, it has nothing to do with Logic or 
>>> Philosophy, by with Psychology, so trying to improve logic or 
>>> Philosophy will not help with it,
>>>
>>> When people ignore "facts", you can't help with logic.
>>>
>>> YOU prove that point,
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They are generally a learned-by-rote bunch. Philosophy of
>>>>>>>>>> logic delves into this more deeply the problem. The
>>>>>>>>>> learned-by-rote bunch assumes that learning by rote makes
>>>>>>>>>> them philosophers. They tend to push actual philosophers
>>>>>>>>>> out by denigrating them in the philosophy of logic spaces.
>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein had no patience with them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you have your never-learned-because-of-ignorance ideas that 
>>>>>>>>> are just incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
>>>>>>>> and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wittgenstein said the same thing.
>>>>>> Try to name any logician that has any history of
>>>>>> being open to critiques of the received view and
>>>>>> you will come up empty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your trying to ally with Wittgenstein doesn't really help you, 
>>>>>>>>> as his ideas were not always accepted, and considered prone to 
>>>>>>>>> error, not unlike your own.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
>>>>>>>> and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your problem is you reject that logic HAS rules that need to be 
>>>>>>> followed, 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just like I said a learned-by-rote view.
>>>>>> Not any what happens if we change this rule? POV
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, I said has rules, and different forms of logic have different 
>>>>> rules, something that seems foreign to you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We change one key rule of logic and then all of the
>>>> logical paradoxes suddenly disappear and logic becomes
>>>> complete, coherent and consistent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And limited, too limited to be useful.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all, yet you only care about rebuttal.
>>
>> The formal systems are essentially the same as
>> before except they exclude self-contradictory
>> expressions as bad input.
>>
> 
> Nope, because changing a core definition invalidates ANY proof that used 
> the old version of the definition until it is shown that it doesn't 
> changee the proof.
> 

The non-existence of a concrete counter-example would prove otherwise.
In this simplified version of my proposal a valid counter-example
is categorically impossible.

When the ONLY change is that self-contradictory expressions
are rejected then this cannot possibly have any effect on
anything not involving self-contradictory expressions.

When all of your eggs are white then none of your eggs are black.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer