Re: True on the basis of meaning

On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:

The entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis of their
meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated relations between
finite strings.
>

>
You do know that what you are describing when applied to Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the most primitively provable theorems.
>

 YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
actual world, thus Quine was wrong.

You don't understand what Quite was talking about,

 

>
You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually means.
>

 Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
preserving operations to these axioms.

Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
Since you INCORRECTLY think that unprovable statements can not be true.

 

You also don't seem to understand the requirements of "Context" when applying the meaning of the words.
>

 Sure I do. What I do not do is allow a wide range of subjective
interpretation. {The cow is dead} cannot be interpreted as
{The cow is running around} WITHOUT LYING.

Nope, you don't understand actual context and only look at oversimplifications.
For instance, no one but you has talked about cows.
You just don't understand some of the fine details of logic, and thus you just assume the statements made are wrong.
It is possible that All the cows are dead, and All the cows are running around to be true at the same time, if there are no cows present.

 

For instance, in Computation Theory, the only simulation that can be used to determine behavior are non-aborted simulations, so that is the only sort of simulation actually considered to be a normal simulation.
>

 My ideas can be directly derived from the foundational truths that
I listed above pertaining to relations between finite strings.

But that isn't the definition of "Meaning of the words".
Meaning of the words does not extend to applying truth perserving operations on the axioms.

 

Of course, that blows up your ideas.

 Only to those that refuse to go through all of the steps and
insist on leaping to conclusions anchored only on the rote
memorization of conventional wisdom.
 

Nope, you have blown up your logic system by injecting false ideas into it by your ignoring context and mixing up definitons from different fields.