XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory   
   From: agisaak@gm.invalid   
      
   On 2025-10-01 16:57, olcott wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Google seems to disagree with you here, treating it as a term of 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.   
      
   Except 'impossibly false' isn't an expression of English that means what   
   you think it means. In English, 'impossibly' normally functions as an   
   intensifier, e.g. "He is impossibly strong" meaning "he is stronger than   
   I thought possible". So presumable "impossibly false" would mean   
   something like the (admittedly nonsensical) "more false than I though   
   possible".   
      
   It's a poor choice of terms for that reason.   
      
    >   
    >> 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.   
      
   But the term logic *doesn't* include epistemology. Logic and   
   epistemology are very distinct fields of inquiry.   
      
   André   
      
   --   
   To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail   
   service.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)