Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise

On 7/6/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/5/24 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/5/2024 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
Then ADMIT an error rather then say someone else is wrong because you didn't say what you meant.
>

>
It takes many revisions to precisely state my intuitions.
Every one is less than perfect. They keep getting better.

>
But, you refuse to acknoledge that you previous statements were errors, but accuse people of lying because they took you at your words.
>

 It is/was incorrect for me to call people liars when
they disputed the exact meaning of my prior less than
accurate words and they only disputed this on the basis
of the less than accuracy.

Then why do you continue to do so?
The mere

 That is not what is happening on the other set of threads.
 

>

>

True on the basis of its verbal meaning isn't a thing in formal system, so not a Tautology, unless you mean by "verbal meaning" the meaning assigned to the term in the system.
>

Se that I have to update it again because I am fallible.
Did you know that the Gnostic Demiurge concept of God is fallible?

>
And that Gnosticism is just a heresy that is inconsistent, and thus not true.
>

It is a notion of God as an ordinary human that also was the
sole creator. Ultimately only an omniscient being could make
the 100% reliable call on this.

>
But such a God could not do what he did.
>

 Again my less than accurate words.
A being that has no more knowledge than a human creates
the universe by first creating/discovering light from
what is otherwise silences and darkness.

But is that probable, or even possible.
That is one of your failings, you imgaine something that maybe jus tmight be possible, (even if it isn't) and assume it is.

 Complete darkness so very gradually becomes pure white
light that it takes a long long time for this being to
notice the change.
 Later on this being imagines a flat surface that is
perpendicular to their own frame-of-reference and
decides to push the top of this flat surface backwards
so that it forms a 45 degree angle. This is how the
third dimension to space could have been created.
 A very long time later this being decides that they
want to forget that they did this and they condition
themselves to get out of the habit of using their power.
 The essence of all of this is explained in the great book.
https://www.amazon.com/What-Are-You-Doing-Universe/dp/0878770658
 The original version of this book tells the reader that they
themselves are the one and only creator of the universe.
The library of congress classifies this book as possible truth
Philosophical Anthropology Miscellanea
 Later versions of this book have an identical body yet come with
the caveat this this is a possible truth not a declared fact.

And by promoting such ideas, you show that you do not believe in the actual all powerful God that did create the univesre, and thus whe it comes time for the judgement of your life, you will be found lacking in the faith needed to redeam you from your failings, and thus spend your eternity seperated from him, in the place, best described in human terms, as the eternal fires of Hell.
If you are not convinced, which is the more likely origin of the world, and which decision has the more impact on what you should do.

 

>

>
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis
of its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection
by truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using
language} is a tautology.

>
No, only if you restrict the language it can use. For instance, On the basis of natural language Cats are Cats is a statement that is true by the meaning of the words, as it Blurgs are Blurgs. But in a system that doesn't define Cats, or Blurgs (like basic mathematics) there is not possible connection by truth preserving operations to the any meaning since it uses undefined terms in the system.
>

You simply did not pay close enough attention to what I actually said.
Try reading again fifteen more times.

>
But you just admitted that your words were incorrect.
>
They problem is when you base your arguement on incorrect definitions, it can't be a valid and sound argument.
>

 That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.