XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/1/2025 3:54 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-10-01, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 10/1/2025 2:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-10-01, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> This has been my primary research focus since 1997.   
   >>>> I will try to sum this up succinctly.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Expressions of language pertaining to physical reality   
   >>>> can never be logically certain because they depend on   
   >>>> underlying assumptions that are not logically certain.   
   >>>   
   >>> Right off the bat you show yourself to be out of your depth, having   
   >>> forgotten first or second year undergrad topics in logic.   
   >>>   
   >>> You can make statements which are unsassailably certain from a logical   
   >>> perspective, yet which combine together propositions that are blatantly   
   >>> false in the world.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> In other words you think that cats might not be animals.   
   >   
   > I'm saying that it's a metter of epistemology, not logic.   
   >   
      
   If you googled [Logical certainty] you would find that   
   this is a philosophical term not any aspect of math or logic.   
      
   I should have said impossibly false instead of logically   
   certain. Yes it is actually the field of epistemology   
   that anchors correct reasoning. What it commonly understood   
   to be logic within the academic fields lacks anywhere   
   nearly sufficient expressiveness.   
      
   > It is not logical/illogical for cats to be or not to be animals.   
   >   
      
   It is logically incorrect to say that cats are not animals   
   when you use the term logic broadly enough to include   
   epistemology.   
      
   >>   
   >>> The truths of propostions are not logically certain or uncertain: they   
   >>> are not logically anything!   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Did you seem me use the term "propositions" anywhere here?   
   >   
   > Yes; logic was mentioned. Logic has propositions.   
   >   
      
   If you googled [Logical certainty] you would find that   
   this is a philosophical term not any aspect of math or logic.   
   I did not use the term logic.   
      
   >> I always use the big picture "Expressions of language" and   
   >> never use the narrow minded term: propositions.   
   >   
   > If the narrow-minded term "propositions" bothers you, then   
   > kindly stay away from the narrow-minded term "logic" and "logical".   
   >   
      
   By logically certain I only meant impossibly false.   
   That cats are animals is impossibly false.   
      
   >>> Logic doesn't care about hwo truths of propositions are ascertained;   
   >>> that only involves logic when logical inference is needed (in some way)   
   >>> as a tool in evaluating a proposition.   
   >>   
   >> When ever I use terms I ONLY mean ...   
   >   
   > Okay, Humpty-Dumpty.   
   >   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality   
   >>   
   >> By logically certain I only mean impossibly false.   
   >   
   > An obvious example of that is the Deductive Argument.   
      
   Far too narrow of a place to start. I need get the   
   whole body of human knowledge into the picture.   
      
   > Such an argument   
   > is true in all imaginable universes of discourse, regardless for the   
   > assignment of truth values to its propositions.   
   >   
      
   I am trying to encompass every notion that can possibly   
   exist that can be expressed in language into a single   
   system of thought.   
      
   >>> Whether a proposition is true (in some understood universe of discourse)   
   >>> isn't "logical" or not.   
   >>   
   >> Why don't you quit being a jerk and try to actually   
   >> understand what I am saying?   
   >   
   > If you keep saying nonsense like a statement of fact about the world   
   > being "logically true", you will not be properly understood.   
   >   
      
   The base meaning of logic is merely the science of correct   
   reasoning, thus logical certainty merely means impossible   
   falsity.   
      
   > Informally speaking, and only informally, something can be said to be   
   > "logically true" if it is a surprising result that is obtained by   
   > following logic from true premises; i.e. some truth we feel that we   
   > "synthesized" by following logic from true premises about the world, so   
   > that it feels as if it "popped out" from logic itself. Of course,   
   > it didn't; it was buried in the premises the whole time, whose truth   
   > isn't logical, but epistemological.   
   >   
      
   Any knowledge of the actual world depends on the   
   accuracy of the model of the world. This depends   
   on base assumptions that cannot be perfectly validated   
   or perfectly refuted.   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)