| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v9rqhs$28jhb$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 22:41:48 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 138 Message-ID: <v9rqhs$28jhb$2@dont-email.me> References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <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> <v9raus$1tedb$46@dont-email.me> <7b951f16a7aa1f1cd26fb71cea0ecf5c536e8ba3@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 05:41:49 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="126bd7503554732891ee2e704ffb1b5d"; logging-data="2379307"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192SFy2C8rEkILdlo1SRrXW" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:S6mWjtAIM928iPT+WLe8hXtZLe0= In-Reply-To: <7b951f16a7aa1f1cd26fb71cea0ecf5c536e8ba3@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6907 On 8/17/2024 6:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 8/17/24 7:15 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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. > > Nope, classical fallacy. > >> >> 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. >> >> > > Nope, just shows you don't understand what you are talking about. > > If everything that was a true statement before is still a true > statement, then you restrictions did nothing. > Bullshit on that. Everything that was undecidable before is now rejected as incorrect. This invalidates the whole notion of undecidability as a linguistic error. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer