Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method

On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a truth bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all inputs, and ~ a truth valus is always the other truth value.
>

>
Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions
that are stipulated to be true derive p?

>
On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p)
 > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p)
>
*YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*

>
No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need to be false, but that was based on the assumption that it could exist.
>

>
No, so True(L, p) is false
and thus ~True(L, p) is true.
>

>
Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions
that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?

>

>
On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > Which has NOTHING to do with the above,
 > as we never refered to False(L,p).
>
*YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*

>
Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with True(L, p) being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) so that make True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, which is incorrrect.
>

>
No, so False(L, p) is false,
>

>
Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time
*I need to make another point that depends on both of them*
>
*YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
*YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>
>

>
right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that means that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken.
>

 You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false
and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false
and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True
nor false in English.
 You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true
nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job*
   True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
Is saying the same thing that you already know.
 You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true"
as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has
the exact same semantics as the English one.
 

No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, p) with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS false, then the resulting comclusion is that True(L, true) is false, whicn means your system is broken.
The problem is that the PREDICATE True(L, p) must ALWAYS give a truth value for ANY sentence, even nonsense, or even the liar paraddox. At first this seems possible since it doesn't need to return the "truth value" of the statement, which might not have one, but return the value true if, and only if, the statement is actually true, and false if the statement is false, or in some way not have a truth value.
The issue is that last case CAN'T be the case in the simple statement useing True in it, as it must be a Truth Bearer.
Thus we find that the Truth Predicate can't be defined in system that are powerful enough to form the sentence in its syntax.
Since you don't know what to do, every time it is brought up, you try to change the topic to your Red Herring arguement.
Your failure to answer just demonstrates that you just don't have the abiltiy to handle this relatively simple logic, because you just don't understand how formal logic works.
This is clear as you do your best to keep out of actual logic and into philosophical discussion about natural language. Maybe that is what you really want to talk about, but if so, you should avoid trying to attack Formal Logic, as it seems you are getting into a gun fight, and even forgot to bring your knife. All you have done is bury any possible reputation with all the LIES you have stated, perhaps because you just don't know better, but it is with reckless disregard for the truth, that it can't be excused as honest mistake. You are just proving that you really are nothing but an ignorant pathological liar.