Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 19. Apr 2024, 23:36:13
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <uvuo4e$3779f$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 4/19/2024 4:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/19/2024 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/19/2024 11:51 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/17/2024 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/17/2024 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
"...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof..." (Gödel 1931:43-44)
>
is literally true whether or not Gödel meant it literally. Since it <is>
literally true I am sure that he did mean it literally.
>
*Parphrased as*
Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
the
formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>
>
It is easy to understand that self-contradictory mean unprovable and
irrefutable, thus meeting the definition of Incomplete(F).
>
Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the
primary
bearer of truth or falsity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>
>
>
Most common-sense types have "the truth is the truth is the truth" then
as with regards to logical positivism and a sensitive, thorough,
comprehensive, reasoned account of rationality and the fundamental
objects of the logical theory, makes for again a stonger logical
positivism, reinvigorated with a minimal "silver thread" to a
metaphysics, all quite logicist and all quite positivist, while
again structuralist and formalist, "the truth is the truth is the truth".
>
Plainly, modeling bodies of knowledge is at least two things,
one is a formal logical model, and another is a scientific model,
as with regards to expectations, a statistical model.
>
For all the things to be in one modality, is that, as a model of
belief, is that belief is formally unreliable, while at the same
time, reasoned and rational as for its own inner consistency and
inter-consistency, all the other models in the entire modal universe,
temporal.
>
>
Axioms are stipulations, they're assumptions, and there are some
very well-reasoned ones, and those what follow the reflections on
relation, in matters of definition of structural relation, and
the first-class typing, of these things.
>
>
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is
a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>
In the case of the correct model of the actual world stipulations
are not assumptions. In this case stipulations are the assignment of
semantic meaning to otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.
>
We do not merely assume that a "dead rat" is not any type of
"fifteen story office building" we know that it is a self-evident
truth.
>
Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true for the
sole purpose of providing semantic meaning to otherwise totally
meaningless finite strings provide the ultimate foundation of every
expression that are true on the basis of its meaning.
>
The only other element required to define the entire body of
{expressions of language that are true on the basis of their meaning}
is applying truth preserving operations to stipulated truths.
>
The axiomless, really does make for a richer accoutrement,
after metaphysics and the canon, why the objects of reason
and rationality, "arise" from axiomless deduction, naturally.
>
Then, our axiomatics and theory "attain" to this, the truth,
of what is, "A Theory", at all.
>
One good theory.  (Modeling all individuals and contingencies
and their models of belief as part of the world of theory.)
>
One good theory, "A Theory: at all", we are in it.
>
>
A catalog and schema and dictionary and the finite is only that, though.
>
"Bigger:  not always worse."
>
>
>
>
 "Understanding" doesn't mean much here
except lack thereof, and hypocrisy.
 We only have "true axioms" because in
all their applications they've held up.
They "withstand", and, "overstand".
 
We cannot really understand the notion of true on the basis of meaning
by only examining how this applies to real numbers. We must broaden
the scope to every natural language expression.
When we do this then we understand that a "dead rat" is not any type
of "fifteen story office building" is a semantic tautology that cannot
possibly be false.
When we understand this then we have much deeper insight into the nature
of mathematical axioms, they too must be semantic tautologies.

There's nothing wrong with Tertium Not Datur,
for the class of predicates where it applies.
 Which is not all of them.
 
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
18 Apr 24 * Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2323olcott
18 Apr 24 +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2262Richard Damon
18 Apr 24 i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2261olcott
19 Apr 24 i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2260Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2259olcott
19 Apr 24 i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2258Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V256olcott
19 Apr 24 i    i+* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V25Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    ii`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V24olcott
19 Apr 24 i    ii `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V23Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    ii  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V22olcott
20 Apr 24 i    ii   `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V21Richard Damon
20 Apr 24 i    i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V250Mikko
20 Apr 24 i    i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--49olcott
20 Apr 24 i    i  +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i    i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--47Mikko
21 Apr 24 i    i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--46olcott
21 Apr 24 i    i    +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i    i    +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
22 Apr 24 i    i    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--43Mikko
22 Apr 24 i    i     +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--10olcott
22 Apr 24 i    i     i+* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--5Mikko
22 Apr 24 i    i     ii`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4olcott
23 Apr 24 i    i     ii `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3Mikko
23 Apr 24 i    i     ii  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--2olcott
24 Apr 24 i    i     ii   `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Mikko
23 Apr 24 i    i     i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4Richard Damon
23 Apr 24 i    i     i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3olcott
24 Apr 24 i    i     i  +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
24 Apr 24 i    i     i  `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Mikko
23 Apr 24 i    i     `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--32olcott
24 Apr 24 i    i      `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--31Mikko
24 Apr 24 i    i       `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--30olcott
25 Apr 24 i    i        `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--29Mikko
25 Apr 24 i    i         `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--28olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i          `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--27Mikko
26 Apr 24 i    i           `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--26olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i            +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i    i            +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--7Ross Finlayson
26 Apr 24 i    i            i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--6olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i            i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--5Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i    i            i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4Ross Finlayson
26 Apr 24 i    i            i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i            i    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--2Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i    i            i     `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Ross Finlayson
27 Apr 24 i    i            `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--17Mikko
27 Apr 24 i    i             `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--16olcott
28 Apr 24 i    i              `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--15Mikko
28 Apr 24 i    i               `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--14olcott
29 Apr 24 i    i                `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--13Mikko
29 Apr 24 i    i                 `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--12olcott
29 Apr 24 i    i                  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--11Mikko
29 Apr 24 i    i                   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--10olcott
30 Apr 24 i    i                    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--9Mikko
30 Apr 24 i    i                     `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--8olcott
1 May 24 i    i                      `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--7Mikko
1 May 24 i    i                       `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--6olcott
2 May 24 i    i                        `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--5Mikko
2 May 24 i    i                         `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4olcott
3 May 24 i    i                          `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3Mikko
3 May 24 i    i                           `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--2olcott
4 May 24 i    i                            `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Mikko
19 Apr 24 i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V22olcott
20 Apr 24 i    i`- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V21Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--199olcott
20 Apr 24 i     +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--3Richard Damon
20 Apr 24 i     i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--2olcott
20 Apr 24 i     i `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--1Richard Damon
20 Apr 24 i     `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--195Mikko
20 Apr 24 i      `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--194olcott
20 Apr 24 i       +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--3Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i       i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--2olcott
21 Apr 24 i       i `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--1Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i       `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--190Mikko
21 Apr 24 i        `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--189olcott
22 Apr 24 i         `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--188Mikko
22 Apr 24 i          `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--187olcott
22 Apr 24 i           `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--186Mikko
22 Apr 24 i            +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--1olcott
22 Apr 24 i            `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--184olcott
23 Apr 24 i             `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--183Mikko
23 Apr 24 i              `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--182olcott
24 Apr 24 i               `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--181Mikko
24 Apr 24 i                `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--180olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--149Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--148olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 i +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--10Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--9olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 i i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--8Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--7olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 i i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--6Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--2olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 i i    i`- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--2olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 i i    i`- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i i    `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Ross Finlayson
25 Apr 24 i                 i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--137Mikko
25 Apr 24 i                 i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--136olcott
26 Apr 24 i                 i   +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i                 i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--134Mikko
26 Apr 24 i                 i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--26olcott
26 Apr 24 i                 i    `* D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does107olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--30Mikko
18 Apr 24 +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V254olcott
18 Apr 24 `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V26olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal