Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable

On 8/17/24 6:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 5:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 5:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:

>
It is more of a somewhat poorly defined process than it is a defined term.
>

>
Thinks IGNORANT you.
>

>
The vast disagreement on very important  truths
such as climate change and election denial seems
to prove that the notion of truth lacks a process
sufficiently well defined that it is accessible
to most.
>

>
But has nothing to do with what Philosophy thinks of as truth, but of people being closed minded
>

>
The process is not sufficiently well defined such
that divergence from truth smacks people in the face.

>
Nope, that isn't the problem, it has nothing to do with Logic or Philosophy, by with Psychology, so trying to improve logic or Philosophy will not help with it,
>
When people ignore "facts", you can't help with logic.
>
YOU prove that point,
>

>

>

>
They are generally a learned-by-rote bunch. Philosophy of
logic delves into this more deeply the problem. The
learned-by-rote bunch assumes that learning by rote makes
them philosophers. They tend to push actual philosophers
out by denigrating them in the philosophy of logic spaces.
Wittgenstein had no patience with them.
>

>
No, you have your never-learned-because-of-ignorance ideas that are just incoherent.
>

>
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.

>
Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
>

>
Wittgenstein said the same thing.
Try to name any logician that has any history of
being open to critiques of the received view and
you will come up empty.
>

>

Your trying to ally with Wittgenstein doesn't really help you, as his ideas were not always accepted, and considered prone to error, not unlike your own.
>

>
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
>

>
Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
>
Your problem is you reject that logic HAS rules that need to be followed,

>
Just like I said a learned-by-rote view.
Not any what happens if we change this rule? POV

>
Note, I said has rules, and different forms of logic have different rules, something that seems foreign to you.
>

>
We change one key rule of logic and then all of the
logical paradoxes suddenly disappear and logic becomes
complete, coherent and consistent.
>

>
And limited, too limited to be useful.
>

 Not at all, yet you only care about rebuttal.
 The formal systems are essentially the same as
before except they exclude self-contradictory
expressions as bad input.
 

Nope, because changing a core definition invalidates ANY proof that used the old version of the definition until it is shown that it doesn't changee the proof.
So, either your change does something, and needs all of the logic to be verified, or it doesn't actually change anything and thus has no afffect on it.
In fact, it sounds like you are changing logic to multi-valued (since "reject" is a possible answer) and that totally changes things.
Sorry, you are just proving you don't know what you are talking about, and it seems you believe that LYING is just valid logic.