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

On 7/6/24 4:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

>
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.
>

 What is your source of this, I found a source that seem to conflict.
https://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/lcc/PDFs%20of%20slides/12-3%20handout.pdf

So, what page takes about the classificaiton of the type of material.
That who document is about assigning "Literary Author Numbers"

 

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.
>

 Yes and when one accept that numbers do not exist it
logically follows that there is no such thing as arithmetic.

So, you really think that is a correct model of reality?
Pity you.

 

>
*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.
>

 He has abolished the law with its commandments and
ordinances, so that he might create in himself one
new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A15&version=NRSVA

But From Matthew 5:17-18 not one piece of the law has passed away.
So, only those that have been made "new" have had that law abolished.
Remember, you are quoting a message to those that were saved, to those that still were lost.

 

>

>
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)
>

 This is simply the Prolog model where true
means provable and false means not provable.
Conventional false means ~x is provable.

Which only handles the most simple of logic, which is still your failing.
Your logic only works in system that simple.

 True(L,x)  only when  x is true, otherwise false.
True(L,~x) only when ~x is true, otherwise false.

Bu

 x = ~True(L, x)
True(L, x) is false.
True(L, ~x) is false.

But if True(L, x) is false
then x = ~True(L, x) is true.
so, you just asserted that True(L, true) is false.
The problem here is you logic doesn't actually allow for the necessaery references in it.
I.e, it is too primative.

 ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.