XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/1/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Logical certainty refers to a state where a conclusion is undeniably   
   true, as it necessarily follows from true premises through valid   
   reasoning, typically in areas like mathematics and formal logic. Such   
   truths, also called absolute truths, are analytic a priori   
   propositions—meaning they can be known independent of sense experience   
   and remain permanent and certain. An example is the logical certainty   
   that "all bachelors are unmarried" because the concept of being an   
   unmarried man is inherent in the definition of a bachelor.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   [impossibly] + [incorrect]   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality   
   The base meanings of the terms combined with something you   
   never heard of Frege's Principle of compositionality.   
      
   >  >   
   >  >> 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   
   >   
      
   Unless you use the base meaning of words AS I ALWAYS DO.   
   Logic is most essentially the science of correct reasoning.   
      
   https://www.britannica.com/topic/logic   
      
   --   
   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)