Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning--

On 4/22/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/22/24 12:35 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/21/2024 8:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/21/24 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/21/2024 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>

It seems, your problem is that you just don't understand the nuances of the papers, and in your stupidity assume this means the other people are just wrong, when the error is on YOUR part.
>

>
The bottom line of all of this (even if my summation is not
precisely accurate) is the Quine convinced most people that
{true on the basis of meaning} is not a viable notion.

>
Or, to paraphrase you, you think everyone else is as stupid as you.
>
Fortunately, that isn't true.
>

>
Point to my mistake if you can. I have spoken about this with very
many people very many times. Quine did convince most people that
{true on the basis of meaning} is problematic.
>

 Godel doesn't mean what you say he means. PERIOD.
 

We cannot tell what the Hell that Gödel really means because all of the
actual semantics is hidden behind diagonalization and arithmetization.
We can tell that Mendelson sums it up like this:
G says “I am not provable in K”. (Mendelson: 2015:208)
*The details of what Gödel's G actually mean are irrelevant*
*Because we can see that epistemological antinomies do derive*
*undecidability, thus proving the the notion of undecidability*
*has a vacuous philosophical foundation*
An undecidable sentence of a theory K is a closed wf ℬ of K such that
neither ℬ nor ¬ℬ is a theorem of K, that is, such that not-⊢K ℬ and
not-⊢K ¬ℬ. (Mendelson: 2015:208)
Undecidable(K, ℬ) ≡ ∃ℬ ∈ K ((K ⊬ ℬ) ∧ (K ⊬ ¬ℬ))
Mendelson, Elliott 2015. Introduction to Mathematical Logic sixth
edition CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group Boca Raton, FL

That is shown because his actual statement that he claims to be true and unprovable is NOT an "epistomological antinomy" as you claim, but a stetement of the form:
 G asserts that no number g exists that satisfies the particular primative recursive relationship.
 That is a statement that MUST be a truthbeared, as the relationship is computable, so every number can be tested, and thus either a number exists that statisfies it, or not.
 This has been explained, and ignored, showing you are too stupid to understand that.
 You seem to think that Godel is too "stupid" to know what he is talking about, while instead, the issue is that YOU are the stupid one, and do not understand the arguement, and thus just presume that , because you don't like the answer, must be wrong.
 

>
It has never been the case that the precise nuances of detail
have ever mattered at all. It has always been the case that
the gist of the matter is crucial.

>
And you think it isn't important to be totally correct.
>

>
{True on the basis of meaning} is the actual ultimate foundation
of correct reasoning.

>
Which means, as has been pointed out, your idea of "Correct Reasoning" is insufficient for most actual logic problems, as it can only handle the very simple cases.
>

>
It has not been pointed out it has been baselessly claimed.
I spent a long time studying Montague Grammar and the Cyc
project. I know that everything that can be said in English
can be precisely mathematically formalized.

 What you call "Baseless claims" are infact PROOFS of what is being said.
 You don't understand them, so call them baseless.
 

This always works except for unknowns:
  True(L, x) ≡ ∃x ∈ F(F ⊢ x)
False(L, x) ≡ ∃x ∈ F(F ⊢ ¬x)
L is an accurate model of the actual world
Proposition(L,x) ≡ ∃x ∈ L (True(L,x) ∨ False(L,x))
As long as the accurate model of the actual world is sufficiently
populated it could prove that there is zero publicly available
evidence of election fraud that could have possibly changed the
outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

>
I proved exactly how Quine was wrong about synonymity
between bachelor and unmarried adult male and you
could show nothing wrong with my approach when applied
to bachelor and unmarried adult male.

 Nope, you think you did, because you don't understand the actual issue being discussed.
 

We already covered this and I fully addressed this.
You said that the issue was that Quine could not understand
the details of the synonymity between the term "bachelor"
and the terms the comprise the meaning of the term "bachelor".
You rejected my answer because it was too precisely accurate.

>
On 4/21/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > So, if you want to define your "Natural Language" logic to NOT be
 > actaully based on "Natural Language" but this marked up version where
 > every word needs to be fully qualified to precisely state its meaning,
 > this just shows you don't understand the meaning of the words you are
 > using.
>
I proved exactly how bachelor and unmarried adult male are
synonymous and you could not point out any error.  The error
that you tried to get away with was that I was too precise.
>

 Nope, you missed his point, because it when right over your head.
 

You habit of using rhetoric instead of reasoning seems dishonest.
What are all of the details of exactly how I missed his point?
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer