XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/1/2025 10:17 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-10-02, olcott  wrote:   
   >> 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   
   >   
   > How to beat around saying "I stand corrected", avoiding the actual   
   > three words like a plague, due to ego.   
   >   
      
   Logical certainty refers to a state where a conclusion is   
   undeniably true NO MATTER HOW YOU GOT THERE. It may have   
   been through semantic logical consequence through   
   epistemology.   
      
   >> reasoning, typically in areas like mathematics and formal logic.   
   >   
   > I.e. not epistemology, as you said.   
   >   
      
   The huge gap that conventional logic has in its attempt at the   
   science of correct reasoning is epistemology.   
      
   > Following from true premises via valid reasoning sounds like   
   > a deductive argument that is sound.   
   >   
   > You know, that thing that is too narrow, not bringing in all of human   
   > knowledge into the picture.   
   >   
      
   Yes thus we add epistemology.   
      
   --   
   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)