This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
about written by a learned-by-rote guy.

learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
their understanding is inherently incorrect.

Anders Ahlgren
When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.

When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this.
There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.

However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
Shut up and let me get on with it!”

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 8/9/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> This is the exactly same learned-by-rote compared to careful
> examination of the philosophical foundations that I have been talking
> about written by a learned-by-rote guy.

No, your blathering is coming from a NEVER learned at all guy.

>
> learned-by-rote (logicians) really don't care if the whole basis of
> their understanding is inherently incorrect.

And what is "inherently incorrect". So far the only thing that I have
seen you really don't like is the fact that we say the major parts of
logic is "incomplete" because there are statements that ARE TRUE, but we
will never be able to prove them in the system.

What is so wrong with that? The nature of Truth is that there is no
requirement that we actually be able to know it for it to actually be True.

Your error seems rooted in the egotistical concept that you need to be
able to, at least potentially, be able to know EVERYTHING that is
"True". We can't!

>
> Anders Ahlgren
> When I was getting my PhD, we had a joint logic seminar with both
> philosophical and mathematical logicians. I would say the most striking
> difference is what part of the talk they are interested in.
>
> When a mathematical logician gives a talk in front of an audience that
> contains philosophical logicians, it often goes something like this.
> There is a brief introduction, including a couple of definitions. For
> the mathematical logician, this is just boring routine stuff, something
> you need to go through before you write down the theorem and gets to the
> interesting part, the neat techniques he or she invented to prove it.
>
> However, as soon as the definitions are shown, the philosophers raise
> their hands and want to discuss whether this is the “right” definition.
> For them, the definition is supposed to clarify what you are studying;
> the definition itself should captures some underlying basic truth. The
> mathematical logician just doesn’t care about that. He or she will
> rather be thinking something along the lines of “Clearly it is the right
> definition, because that is the definition that lets us prove this
> extremely cool theorem that I haven’t even gotten to write down yet!
> Shut up and let me get on with it!”
>
> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-philosophical-logic-mathematical-logic
>

So, you are agreeing that you don't understand what the logician has
defined!

As I have said MANY times, and you don't seem to understand, you are
perfectly free to define your own "new" logic system, you just can't
then say you are using the same system as people have previously defined.

And, more importantly, you can't just claim that you system is useful
for anything until you actually show that it is.

Go ahead, TRY to actually define your "new" logical system, but you will
need to be PRECISE to define what you mean, not just that "everyone"
should know what that term means.

Then go and show what can be done with that system.

Since you are trying to redefine the ultimate core of the logic system,
what a "deduction" can do, you can't just use ANYTHING that comes out of
any standard logic sytem, but need to re-derive the centuries of work
done in logic, making sure you only do deductions that meet your definition.

The argument that you don't have time doesn't work, using work you have
declared might be incorrect is just incorrect.

I think your really problem is that you can't really define what you
mean, because you don't exactly know what you want. You see a problem
with the results of logic, that it PROVES things that you don't like, so
want to remove the ability to prove that, but the problem is that if you
remove that part of the ability, the "knife" isn't sharp enough to
remove other major parts that you do need.

You also don't understand that if you change something, it isn't what it
was.

I think that ultimately, what you don't understand is that in logic you
have to be very sure of what you are starting with, as a little error in
your foundation brings the whole system down. That is the Principle of
Explosion, that in a logic system powerful enough to do the sort of work
we want out of logic, there is no such thing as a "small error", any
error, if accepted into the system, brings it down.

Yes, there are forms of logic that become "Explosion Proof", that can
contain an error into breaking just a small part of the system, but the
making of the system explosion proof, does so by hampering what it can do.