Re: x true. but only if it IS true.

On 8/6/24 7:47 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/6/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-04 12:04:23 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/4/2024 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-03 13:44:25 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/3/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-02 12:19:31 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/2/2024 1:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-31 14:46:17 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/31/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-30 13:40:55 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
>

The truth about every expression of language that can be known
to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
that a lack of connection simply means untrue.

>
Does that really mean something? If the significance of the lack of
connection is restricted to sentences where the connection exists
then it seems that you are talking about nothing.
>

>
https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
I had to redefine the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic
distinction because Quine convinced most everyone that this
distinction does not exist.

>
You cannot redefine side wihout redefining the other side and the
distinction itself. Is your redefinition equivalent to the one
at https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/ or did
you find out that that distincition is not the one that exists?

>
Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood
that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
(~Married + Adult + Male).

>
It is not a good idea to lie about other people.
>
When reqding Quine, you should ask yourself why your presentation
is much less convincing than Quine's.

>
Try and show the details of how I am incorrect.

>
What you said (quoted above) about Quine is insulting and unjustified,
which alone is wrong.

>
The bottom line here is that every objection that he could
have possibly made is addressed by this augmentation to
the definition of {analytic truth}
>
*Original definition* of {Analytic truth}
Every expression of (formal or natural language) that is
true on the basis of its meaning...

>
So what is wrong with Quines opinion that the truth of "A bachelor
is not married" comes from the meaning of the words?
>

>
If he said that then he would be saying that he has no
objection to the {Analytic/Synthetic} distinction. He is
famous for having an objection to this.

>
What makes you thing he has no objection not involving batchelors to
the analytinc/synthetic distinction?
>

 I only skimmed his paper. I don't have to even look at anything
that said besides his conclusion to know that it is wrong.
 

That is your problem, since you don't know exactly what he is talking about, your CAN'T know that his conclusion is wrong.

It is a tautology to say that expressions of language that
are true or false on the basis of their meaning are established
as true of false by a contiguous sequence of truth preserving
operations as truth-makers between (x or ~x) and the expressions
of language that make (x or ~x) true.

'
Except that "expressions of language" when that language is a natural langauge, do not necessarily have a single meaning that can make it true or not.
Something you seem to not understand, or don't want to admit, as it shows how YOUR arguements are flawed.
For instance, the phrase "DDD simuated by HHH" could be talking about the behavior of the behavior of the full program DDD that HHH is simulating (which is actually the perfered meaning by the grammer), or you could streach it to be the simulation of DDD by HHH. You make claims that are true for the second, and then try to apply them to the first.
Or you "correct simulation" phrase, which standardly means a complete and correct simulation, you try to extend to include partial simulations (which it does mean at times), but you want that second meaning to include all the properties that the first meaning contains, when it doesn't.
This just shows you take you lead from the father of lies, that has always used wordplay to make his statements sound like the might be true, when they contain essential falsehood, to try to trap people.
It looks like you are just rolling around in his trap and are loving it.
Sorry to inform you that when you live a life of lies, that kills your reputation when they get revealed, and your eternity will be determined by them.

 When anyone disagrees with the gist of this they are necessarily
incorrect.