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.   
   >   
   >> 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   
   >   
      
   The science of correct reasoning certainly requires   
   epistemology, otherwise most human knowledge cannot   
   be reasoned about.   
      
   --   
   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)