Re: The Foundation of Linguistic truth is NOT stipulated relations between finite strings

On 9/16/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/16/2024 7:26 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:

The amount of utter nonsense one might discover in USENET is typified by a thread titled "The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations between finite strings". It's even doubtful there is an agreed upon meaning of "linguistic truth". Is it something to do with truths expressed in language, truths about language, or something else?
>
In fact "truth" isn't so easy to define either. Is it a time independent fact, something believed by a corespondent, or something else?
>
This is a trivial example of what happens when unqualified folks want to define things that have been considered for millennia by some of the finest human minds that we know of without resolution as yet. Occasionally one of the hoi polloi will solve one of the "big ones" and be elevated to the Parthenon of the Greats but don't hold your breath.
>
I remember reading a book by Karl von Frisch about bees and how they communicate the location of pollen sources through ritualized dances. (He received a Nobel Prize for his works.) Since any, and I repeat any, communication mechanism, involves a language we can conclude that only a shit-for-brain moron would look for a stipulation in the evolution of bees and their ancestors over geological time periods. Oh! And by the way, what language did bees and their ancestors use to make these stipulations? And what are the finite strings within dances that are stipulated? By whom? How?
>
And of course there is the communications of flowers to bees. First off, did you know that bees can see in color but that there color receptors are for different wave lengths than ours? Bee color vision is not our RGB; rather it is based on R G BP, where BP stands for bee purple, and is in the ultraviolet spectrum where we and most animals cannot detect it. It turns out that many flowers color pathways on their petal insides with lines that are paths that show a bee where the pollen is. (Just stay on the yellow brick road.) And that children is how flowers tell bees how to cross pollinate them while also shouting there's food there. Once again I ask what finite strings and how were they stipulated?

 What I say seems like nonsense until you try to find a
counter-example and cannot. Here is the seed of my idea.

But, you have proven yourself to be just a LIAR, as your "Halt Decider" Fails because you don't know what the words mean, and your "truth predicte" isn't one because you don't know what the words mean, and you arguement against Godel just shows you don't know what the words mean.
In other words, you are just proving you don't know what you are talking about.

 By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc. (with a similar hierarchy for extensions), and that sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of types fitting together.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944