Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---

On 11/6/2024 2:34 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

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.

      Disagree.  There is a clear advantage in distinguishing those
who make [honest] mistakes from those who wilfully mislead.

That is not a disagreement.

      I 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 same
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 not
useful to describe them as "lies" in the absence of any context, eg when
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 medical
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.
 

It is not at all my lack of expertise on mathematical logic
it is your ignorance of philosophy of logic as shown by you
lack of understanding of the difference between "a priori"
and "a posteriori" knowledge. Surgical procedures and
mathematical logic are in fundamentally different classes
of knowledge.

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 = 4, the fact that the world
is a ball, not flat, Gödel's theorem, and the halting problem, have all
been demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever.
 

Regarding the last two they would have said the same thing about Russell's Paradox and what is now known as naive set theory at the
time.
That you can't begin to imagine that mathematical logic might
not be infallible is definitely an error on your part as proven
by your failure to point put any error in the following:
(Incomplete(L) ≡  ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
*When True(L,x) is only a sequence of truth preserving operations*
*applied to x in L and False(L, x) is only a sequence of truth*
*preserving operations applied to ~x in L then Incomplete(L) becomes* *Not_Truth_Bearer(L,x) and nothing more*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer