Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology
 providing situational context.
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 06:29:43 +0000
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <vrllcn$393mf$5@dont-email.me>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@dont-email.me>
 <7f68c434c15abfc9d4b645992344f0e851f031a3@i2pn2.org>
 <vr4t3e$bkso$5@dont-email.me> <vr50bg$ed3o$5@dont-email.me>
 <vr5abg$m5ov$6@dont-email.me>
 <8ea8c8f1c661d0f2eef855af9b4c171d4f574826@i2pn2.org>
 <vr6po4$1udpn$7@dont-email.me>
 <4965dcbb84fc29c9ba9d3cea39b59a8608bfeb66@i2pn2.org>
 <vr7v51$2u81k$3@dont-email.me>
 <7db5f56a38a6b6eda2b63acc2568f5dedcc55efd@i2pn2.org>
 <vr9fp6$bv13$5@dont-email.me> <vrbrkd$2ii4j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrbss5$2j07c$1@dont-email.me>
 <2dd0fa97e2387ba4bca36b40ca16925933b35d9a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrfe7q$1oabl$1@dont-email.me>
 <0e92642bf4519e50ba48d51b52d17749c6e19664@i2pn2.org>
 <vri3va$3egq$1@dont-email.me>
 <9495b0ea31b3c2559cf9515bfabe071d48cc9d39@i2pn2.org>
 <vrinjq$kefg$2@dont-email.me> <vrj702$14v65$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjboo$17u8e$2@dont-email.me>
 <674e15b27aee55659e2925766cb6bb2b94fbb36d@i2pn2.org>
 <vrkh30$29m93$1@dont-email.me> <vrkq98$2h2aq$2@dont-email.me>
 <369333e532dcdbb9b63ed007c90436544fa305f2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 07:29:43 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="421cf145daeb1bbae253897722856eae";
	logging-data="3444431"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/NGvjOPqIPmQa4fl+L2eGYnVYXFkRMFQRS1KOC0p3x9A=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YYe/pY8VboC2VILJqRFPISieC24=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <369333e532dcdbb9b63ed007c90436544fa305f2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3244

On 22/03/2025 00:01, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/21/25 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> Or we could simply define the rules for constructing a
>> formal system such that inconsistency cannot exist.
>>
> 
> You could try, but it can't be done and allow for any reasonable 
> level of power in the logic. You basically need to have a system 
> that can only prove a finite number of facts, so you can check 
> that none of them are inconsistant.

Hofstadter's GEB provides an excellent analogy of this in 
Contracrostipunctus, where Tortoise puts Crab's record player to 
the test:

"[Crab] had just bought his first record player, and being 
somewhat gullible, believed every word the salesman had told him 
about it-in particular, that it was capable of reproducing any 
and all sounds. In short, he was convinced that it was a Perfect 
phonograph."

Those who know the book will recall the argument. (And those who 
don't should buy a copy.)

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within