Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 6/12/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:That is your excuse for not freaking paying attention?On 6/12/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:And thus show that you don't have the mental ability to properly communicate.On 6/12/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:>On 6/12/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/12/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:>On 6/12/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>>>
Nope. The concept and definition of natural numbers exist, but doesn't derive from any part of the "universe".
>
Note, they don't "exist" as a substance, only as a concept, and the universe is substance.
>
OF EVERYTHING IF THERE IS NOTHING THAT MAKES AN EXPRESSION
OF LANGUAGE X TRUE THENN (THEN AND ONLY THEN) X HAS NO TRUTH-MAKER.
And how can we tell that there is nothing that makes the expression of language true?
>
What makes the expression: "a frog" true?
I don't know, what makes the expression: "a frog" true?
>
It could be if put besides the picture of a frog, or a cage holding one, or a box with a disection kit.
>>>Do you mean that Russel's Teapot has a truth-maker, because we can not show that there is nothing that makes it true?>
>
Truth need not be known.
Then why do you insisit it must be provable?
>If of EVERYTHING there is NOTHING that makes an expression>
of language X true then X is untrue.
Does that only include things in that universe, or of any universe?
>
I changed my freaking words because you had trouble with the other
words. WHEN I CHANGE THE WORDS TO MAKE THEM CLEARER I AM NOT FREAKING
USING THE ORIGINAL FREAKING WORDS.
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.