Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise

On 7/6/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 2:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/24 2:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 1:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:

>
The essence of all of this is explained in the great book.
https://www.amazon.com/What-Are-You-Doing-Universe/dp/0878770658
>
The original version of this book tells the reader that they
themselves are the one and only creator of the universe.
The library of congress classifies this book as possible truth
Philosophical Anthropology Miscellanea
>
Later versions of this book have an identical body yet come with
the caveat this this is a possible truth not a declared fact.

>
And by promoting such ideas, you show that you do not believe in the actual all powerful God that did create the univesre, and thus whe it

>
I have long since fully understood that beliefs and
disbelief are lies that we tell ourselves. They are
lies because they close the mind to additional information.

>
No, you have fallen for the lie that real truth doesn't exist.
>

 You have ignored my reference to a book that was classified
by the Library of Congress as possibly true that says anyone
reading this book *is* the one and only creator of the universe.

The Library of Congress makes no such determinations. The authors provide the classifications.
The fact that such a statement is a logical impossiblity if one accepts that there is a shared reality (as that realith existed before the reader did) makes it absurd.

 *Anyone seeking the truth cannot simply ignore that*
You have not seen this actual book, yet I have several copies.

You would, and it fits in your pattern of logic.

 

>

comes time for the judgement of your life, you will be found lacking in the faith needed to redeam you from your failings, and thus spend your eternity seperated from him, in the place, best described in human terms, as the eternal fires of Hell.
>

Faith is not the same thing as the mere presumption that
beliefs often are. Faith is the substance of things hoped for
not the presumption that we are correct thus others are wrong.

>
Right, but since you do not have a faith in the actual creator of the universe, you are unable to avail yourself of his grace to let you have the relationship you need with him, so will forever be outside of him.
>
You may not belevie that now, but if you honestly look at the outcome of your beliefs and your life, you should be able to see that they don't have any better foundation. I KNOW that what I believe is true, because I have put it to the test, and he has proven himself faithful.
>

>

If you are not convinced, which is the more likely origin of the world, and which decision has the more impact on what you should do.
>

I am testing the hypothesis that I was deceived by Satan.
>
Every translation of the bible agrees that God himself would
be this deceiver.

>
Nope.
>

>
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false,
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Thessalonians%202:11

>
Read the context. Man because of our sin, can not directly see God at work.
>

 That the bible says God himself would send a delusion cannot
possibly have any context where God himself is not a deceiver.
That every translation agrees is strong evidence that it is not
a translation error.

But if you look at the context, the delusion is the delusion created by ones own denial of the law of God, so he sends them what they wanted, by their own choice, so God is not "a deceiver" but only allows people who have chosen to be decieved to be deceived.

 

>
I have ALWAYS only wanted what-ever the truth turns out to be
even if everyone in the universe disagrees.

>
But you ignore that truth when it shows itself to you.
>

>
*THE TRUTH OF THIS SEEMS INFALLIBLY CORRECT*
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
>
*Meaning that all of math and logic that disagrees are WRONG*
>

>
Nope, that is just your own deception. The human use of language just isn't that good and has flaws in it.
>

My system does not get stuck like the Tarski system.
As you already know there cannot possibly be any sequence
of truth preserving operations to LP or ~LP proves that
my system overcomes Tarski's proof.

So, what is the value of True(L, x) where x in L is the statement
~True(L,x)
If it is false, then x must be true, and your true predicate just made an error.
Your only out is for the True predicate to not BE a predicate, which is of course, a contradiction.

 That you simply dismiss this out-of-hand when you already
know it is true cannot be construed as anything but a lie.

Because you can't answer the question on it, because there isn't one, which shows your idea is broken. (or you are just a liar).

 

And, you presume that an "accurate model of the actual world" exists (or even can exist). The fundamental problem is that we only know of the world though IMPERFECT observations, and thus can only make an imperfect model of the world.

 We perfectly know that kittens are not 15 story office buildings.
It seems that we perfectly know that no evidence has ever been
presented that election fraud changed the outcome of the 2020
presidential election.

But lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Yes, we can say there has been no evidence of sufficient fraud to have changed the election, but if your belief system entials that "The System" has the power to hid that evidence, you don't need to believe that the lack of evidence means anything.
Just like you, they reject the idea that evidence is needed to make claims.

 

Yes, you can do a lot through a known imperfect model, but you need to know the imperfections in it to understand its limits.
>

My model is a semantic tautology thus cannot possibly be erroneous.
If some people believe that kittens are 15 story office buildings
this simply makes them WRONG.

Of course it can, we have shown that you get your error in the definition of True.

 

Your logic starts by requiring begining with a perfect knowledge of what is, which is impossible, and is the sort of error you keep on making, of assuming something as "must be true" when it is just impossible.

 The main thing that my model very clearly does is toss out
pathological expressions on their ass. This corrects the error
of mathematical incompleteness.
 

As well as much valid logic, forcing your system to only accept very primative logic forms.
You don't see it, because you don't understand how logic works.
You only understand those most simple of logic forms, and thus don't understand where your assumptions get you in trouble.