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

On 4/23/24 11:39 AM, olcott wrote:

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.

Of course we can, if we understand what those things actually are.
They do not HIDE the semantics, except to people who don't understand what he is talking about. In fact, a key part of the proof is showing that the logic of arithmetic is powerful enough to "arithmetize" an arbitray statement and check a proof.
The fact that YOU can't figure out what he is saying isn't his fault, but shows YOU LACK of understanding.
Yes, the proof isn't designed for someone who only understand the first week of first year logic, like your understanding seems to be. It seems that you don't understand how Formal Logic works.

 We can tell that Mendelson sums it up like this:
G says “I am not provable in K”. (Mendelson: 2015:208)

Right, IN META-F.
You are just too stupid to understand what that means,

 *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*

Nope. You don't understand the actual meaning of the word,
"Undecidability" in computation refers to having an ACTUAL MAPPING that can not have finite algorithm compute it. That is not "Vacuoise"
In the more moder logic field, it referes to there being a sentence in the langugage of the field (and thus should be a truth bearer) not being able be proven or refuted. And, since the statement thus HAS a truth value, it is NOT an "epistemological antinomy" as you talk about.
Your issue only comes up in NON-FORMAL logic system (which seems to be all you understand, as you can't seem to accept the rules of Formal Logic) which do not apply such limits to the sentences in them.

 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)

Right, and BEING IN theory K, means it HAS A TRUTH VALUE in Theory K.
What do you think "ℬ ∈ K" means? Note, not every ℬ IS an element of K.

 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.

Nope. You have yet to actually PROVE anything.
Your START by "Paraphrasing" something to means something it does not mean, and thus you start with a LIE and an FALSEHOOD.
You don't seem to understand what a PROOF actually is in a formal logic system, as they are based on needing to use actual logic, and not just rheteric like some branches of philosophy.

>
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))

But no such thing as a "accurate model of the actual world" actually really exists.
And Formal Logic doesn't even pretend that its logic system need to be models of the actual world.

 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.

Except you begin with the error of assuming such a model could exist. (Hint, Quantum Mechanics, as we currently understand it doesn't allow for such a thing).
And that people would some how believe such a model when they won't belive the evidence that you might use to try to build one.

 

>
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.

No, I reject it because it isn't correct.
YOU are making the exact same error as Quine was pointing out thinking that undecidable and incomplete are somehow "exactly" the same.

 

>
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?
 

To begin with, Godel's G is NOT an epistemlogical antinomy, so you BEGAN your arguement with a lie.
YOU are the one using rhetoric, because that is all you have, since you don't actually know many of the rules and axioms of the formal systems you are talking about, so you can't actually build an actual proof in them.