On 2/23/2022 1:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-23 08:13, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany. That's like assuming that someone must be from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have
>>>>>>>>>> perfectly summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic,
>>>>>>>>>> the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>>>>>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>>>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at
>>>>>>>>>> the deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day
>>>>>>>>>> for his knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to
>>>>>>>>>> explain the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and
>>>>>>>>>> asserts that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof." In other words his proof has
>>>>>>>>>> the exact same basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as
>>>>>>>>>> the "liar antinomy".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>>>>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar
>>>>>>>>>> paradox Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the
>>>>>>>>> complexities of the problem. B
>>>>>>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made
>>>>>>>> (his view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply
>>>>>>>> utterly clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you
>>>>>>>> only know them by rote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved in
>>>>>>> Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system' means:the
>>>>>>> opposite has been proved in Russell's system
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is not a correct statement.
>>>>>> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to
>>>>> Gödel's Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression
>>>>> 'True in Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or discuss
>>>>> truth at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
>>>>> enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
>>>>> intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein
>>>>> 'thinking out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he
>>>>> later expanded upon and published as well as half-baked ideas which
>>>>> he clearly came up with before his morning coffee.
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular
>>>>> paragraph if he later revisited it, but there are two things of
>>>>> which we are absolutely certain.
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) We know the comment was written *BEFORE* Wittgenstein had
>>>>> actually read Gödel's paper, so it was based on some second-hand
>>>>> summary of the paper which he had encountered.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) We know that Wittgenstein *DID* eventually read Gödel's paper,
>>>>> and that after reading it he did not make any attempt to publish
>>>>> this 'criticism' of Gödel, nor did he mention it again in any of
>>>>> his known notebooks.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My view on Gödel is totally summed up by Wittgenstein.
>>>> I formed Wittgenstein's complete view long before I ever heard of him.
>>>
>>> You don't know what Wittgenstein 'complete view' actually was. No one
>>> other than Wittgenstein knows this.
>>>
>>
>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of Wittgenstein I
>> can say that his quoted words in my paper form a 100% complete
>> rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both true and unprovable.
>> It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>
> It is quite possible for two people to independently reach the same
> wrong conclusion. So the above hardly constitutes an argument.
>

It is very easy to see that true and unprovable is impossible once one
comprehends the self evident truth regrading how analytic truth itself
actually works.

Most people "know" that a statement is true on the basis that someone
that they trust told them this statement is true. Most people here
"know" that I must be wrong simply because they trust that Gödel is
correct.

>>> What you are really saying is that you formed some view and then
>>> interpreted one of Wittgenstein's remarks in terms of that view.
>>>
>>>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a
>>>> comparable notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>>>>
>>>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which belong
>>>> to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also say that
>>>> these elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given 𝓣, an
>>>> elementary theorem is an elementary statement which is true...
>>>>
>>>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's elementary
>>>> theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by applying truth
>>>> preserving operations beginning with Curry's elementary theorems of
>>>> 𝓣 as premises.
>>>>
>>>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations
>>>> you always necessarily end up with truth.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Gödel, since his theorem was
>>> not concerned with truth and made no mention of truth at all.
>>>
>>> André
>>
>> It has everything to do with all undecidable propositions.
>>
>> Undecidable propositions are simply not truth bearers
>
> The above claim is simply false. It is not consistent with the standard
> definitions of 'undecidable' and 'truth bearer'.

It is consistent with the way that <truth> really works, thus
superseding and overriding all of the misconceptions that seem to
contradict it.

>
> Moreover, it also doesn't follow from your above claim that "When you
> start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations you always
> necessarily end up with truth." So you're basically presenting a
> non-sequitur.
>

Something that 100% perfectly logically follows is utterly ridiculously
characterized as non-sequitur.

> > in the same way that the following sentence is neither true nor false:
> > "What time is it?"
>
> That sentence is not a proposition. Gödels paper is concerned with
> undecidable *propositions*. And it isn't concerned with natural language
> at all.
>

I wanted to make a very clear example of an expression of language that
very obviously cannot be resolved to true or false. Example form formal
language that are not truth bearers are placed in the incorrect category
of undecidable.

Flibble is correct in that the reason these things are not properly
resolved is category error. When one assumes a term-of-the-art
definition that has hidden incoherence then these terms-of-the-art make
their own error inexpressible.

The strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language
determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine
cognitive categories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only truth
>> preserving operations beginning with a set of premises known to be
>> true (such as Haskell Curry's elementary theorems) are sound, else
>> unsound.
>
> Oh dear. You really are confused. You're making numerous category errors
> above. Soundness is not a property of arguments, not propositions (which
> is what Gödel is concerned with).

I will use more generic language that has not been overridden idiomatic
terms-of-the-art meanings.

expressions of language that were derived by applying truth preserving
operations to expressions of language known to be true necessarily
derive true expressions of language.

> And 'expressions of formal or natural
> language' don't 'apply truth preserving operations'.
>

If I have a cat then I have an animal applies the truth preserving
operation Is-A-Type_Of(cat, animal) on the basis of a knowledge ontology
that specifies all of the general knowledge.

>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only truth
>> preserving operations beginning with a set of premises are valid, else
>> invalid.
>
> That sentence is incoherent.
>

If one applies only truth preserving operations to a set of true
expressions of language then true expressions of language are derived.

If one applies only truth preserving operations to a set of expressions
of language then logically entailed expressions of language are derived.

>> valid reasoning requires conclusions to be a necessary consequence of
>> the premises.
>
> Which is not contradicted by Gödel. He would agree with this.
>
> André

The key mistake is that he believes that his sentence is true and
unprovable which is analogous to a purebred cat that is a kind of dog.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer