Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable --- truth-bearer

On 9/3/24 8:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/3/2024 5:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-02 12:44:57 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/2/2024 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-01 13:41:57 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/1/2024 7:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-31 12:18:20 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/31/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-30 14:45:32 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/30/2024 8:36 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-29 13:36:00 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/29/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-28 12:14:47 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/28/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-24 03:26:39 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/23/2024 3:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-22 13:23:39 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/22/2024 7:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-21 12:47:37 +0000, olcott said:
>

>
Formal systems kind of sort of has some vague idea of what True
means. Tarski "proved" that there is no True(L,x) that can be
consistently defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem#General_form
>
*The defined predicate True(L,x) fixed that*
Unless expression x has a connection (through a sequence
of true preserving operations) in system F to its semantic
meanings expressed in language L of F then x is simply
untrue in F.
>
Whenever there is no sequence of truth preserving from
x or ~x to its meaning in L of F then x has no truth- maker
in F and x not a truth-bearer in F. We never get to x is
undecidable in F.

>
Tarski proved that True is undefineable in certain formal systems.
Your definition is not expressible in F, at least not as a definition.
>

>
Like ZFC redefined the foundation of all sets I redefine
the foundation of all formal systems.

>
You cannot redefine the foundation of all formal systems. Every formal
system has the foundation it has and that cannot be changed. Formal
systems are eternal and immutable.
>

>
Then According to your reasoning ZFC is wrong because
it is not allowed to redefine the foundation of set
theory.

>
It did not redefine anything. It is just another theory. It is called
a set theory because its terms have many similarities to Cnator's sets.

>
It <is> the correct set theory. Naive set theory
is tossed out on its ass for being WRONG.

>
There is no basis to say that ZF is more or less correct than ZFC.

>
A set containing itself has always been incoherent in its
isomorphism to the concrete instance of a can of soup so
totally containing itself that it has no outside surface.
The above words are my own unique creation.

>
There is no need for an isomorphism between a set an a can of soup.
There is nothing inherently incoherent in Quine's atom. Some set
theories allow it, some don't. Cantor's theory does not say either
way.
>

>
Quine atoms (named after Willard Van Orman Quine) are sets that only contain themselves, that is, sets that satisfy the formula x = {x}.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement#Quine_atoms
>
Wrongo. This is exactly isomorphic to the incoherent notion of a
can of soup so totally containing itself that it has no outside
boundary.

>
As I already said, that isomorphism is not needed. It is not useful.

>
It proves incoherence at a deeper level.

>
No, it does not. If you want to get an incoherence proven you need
to prove it yourself.
>

>
When you try to imagine a can of soup that soup totally contains
itself that it has no outside boundary you can see that this is impossible because it is incoherent.
>
It requires simultaneous mutually exclusive properties.
(a) It must have an outside surface because all physical
things have an outside surface.

>
Perhaps physical things in some sense have an outside surface but
that surface is not a part of the thing. We get the imression of
a surface because the resolution of our eyes and other senses is
too coarse to observe the small details of physical things.
>

>
No it has an actual surface. When we pick up a ball
we touch its surface. If is had no outer surface we
could not pick up a ball.
>

(b) It must not have an outside surface otherwise it is
not totally containing itself.

>
It hasn't.
>

>
If it has no outside surface then it does not physically exist

>
In that case nothing physically exists. Every outside surface is
merely an illusion.
>

 Nothing that no outside surface exists.
Since I can touch a cup with my fingers
this proves that the cup and my fingers
have an outside surface.

But you can't "touch" logical entities that are not actually physical objects.

 A set containing itself is isomorphic to a can
of soup containing itself. In both cases they
cannot have an outside surface.

Nope,
bad analogies does not a proof make.

 The physically existing thing must have out
outside surface proves that the can does not
physically exist.

So, the Sun doesn't exist, as being a gas/plasma doesn't have a "surface" as a boundry?

 The the Venn diagram of a set that includes itself
as a member can at best shown a diagram of a pair
of identical sets with overlapping boundaries proves
that a set containing itself cannot exist. It has
always been a misconception.
 For one set to be actually contained within another
one this contained set must with inside of the boundaries
of its container set.
 

As well it is.