XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory   
   From: agisaak@gm.invalid   
      
   On 2025-10-01 20:05, 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   
   > 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.   
      
   That doesn't contradict what I said. And now you seem to be disagreeing   
   with yourself. First you claim its not part of math or logic, now you   
   claim it is. (or are you simply quoting something in which case you need   
   to provide your source.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   Word meaning is governed as much by convention as it is by   
   compositionality (and Frege was quite clear on this point).   
      
   I'm trying to do you a favour by pointing out that one of your phrases   
   is awkward and prone to misconception. Why not simply use a clearer term   
   such as 'necessarily true'.   
      
   >>  >   
   >>  >> 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.   
      
   And how do you determine the "base meaning" of a word other than by an   
   appeal to convention?   
      
   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)