Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail
From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 20:34:51 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: muc.de e.V.
Message-ID: <vggjtb$1f3u$1@news.muc.de>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>   <fd8bf90393a5bcb10f7913da9081421637262590@i2pn2.org> <vg14nd$2t4b1$1@dont-email.me> <SGUUO.312650$kxD8.126005@fx11.iad> <vg16dl$2th77$1@dont-email.me> <vg2b6j$374jn$1@dont-email.me> <vg2gg1$37lpn$5@dont-email.me> <vg4onc$3ngof$1@dont-email.me> <vg4uem$3o3ca$1@dont-email.me> <vg7f7l$a1jf$1@dont-email.me> <vg8ulh$9stc$1@dont-email.me> <vgakbd$vlda$1@dont-email.me> <vgbm5r$sgg9$1@dont-email.me> <vgg6fh$2s61$1@news.muc.de> <vgg7tk$26klj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 20:34:51 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2";
	logging-data="48254"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.3-20231224 ("Banff") (FreeBSD/14.1-RELEASE-p5 (amd64))
Bytes: 4886
Lines: 81

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/6/2024 10:45 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2024 14:05, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...] The statement itself does not change
>>>>>>>> when someone states it so there is no clear advantage in
>>>>>>>> saying that the statement was not a lie until someone stated
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>  =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0Disagree.=C2=A0 There is a clear advanta=
ge in distinguishing those
>>>>>>> who make [honest] mistakes from those who wilfully mislead.
>>>>>> That is not a disagreement.
>>>>>  =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0I disagree. [:-)]
>>>> Then show how two statements about distinct topics can disagree.

>>>         You've had the free, introductory five-minute argument;  the
>>> half-hour argument has to be paid for. [:-)]

>>>         [Perhaps more helpfully, "distinct" is your invention.  One s=
ame
>>> statement can be either true or false, a mistake or a lie, depending =
on
>>> the context (time. place and motivation) within which it is uttered.
>>> Plenty of examples both in everyday life and in science, inc maths.  =
Eg,
>>> "It's raining!", "The angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees.", "The
>>> Sun goes round the Earth.".  Each of those is true in some contexts, =
false
>>> and a mistake in others, false and a lie in yet others.  English has =
clear
>>> distinctions between these, which it is useful to maintain;  it is no=
t
>>> useful to describe them as "lies" in the absence of any context, eg w=
hen
>>> the statement has not yet been uttered.]

>> There is another sense in which something could be a lie.  If, for
>> example, I emphatically asserted some view about the minutiae of medic=
al
>> surgery, in opposition to the standard view accepted by practicing
>> surgeons, no matter how sincere I might be in that belief, I would be
>> lying.  Lying by ignorance.


> That is a lie unless you qualify your statement with X is a
> lie(unintentional false statement). It is more truthful to
> say that statement X is rejected as untrue by a consensus of
> medical opinion.

No, as so often, you've missed the nuances.  The essence of the scenario
is making emphatic statements in a topic which requires expertise, but
that expertise is missing.  Such as me laying down the law about surgery
or you doing the same in mathematical logic.

> This allows for the possibility that the consensus is not
> infallible. No one here allows for the possibility that the
> current received view is not infallible. Textbooks on the
> theory of computation are NOT the INFALLIBLE word of God.

Gods have got nothing to do with it.  2 + 2 =3D 4, the fact that the worl=
d
is a ball, not flat, G=C3=B6del's theorem, and the halting problem, have =
all
been demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever.

>> Peter Olcott is likewise ignorant about mathematical logic.  So in
>> that sense, the false things he continually asserts _are_ lies.


> *It is not at all that I am ignorant of mathematical logic* It is that
> I am not a mindless robot that is programmed by textbook opinions.

You are a mindless robot that hasn't even mastered the basic textbooks.
What is in these textbooks is not opinions, but proven facts.  That is
something which is beyond your understanding - the idea that facts are
facts, and not opinions.

[ .... ]

> --=20
> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer