Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.ai.philosophy    |    Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this    |    59,235 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 58,894 of 59,235    |
|    olcott to Richard Damon    |
|    =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_readers_are_conned_into_    |
|    30 Dec 25 09:10:11    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 12/30/2025 8:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:       > On 12/30/25 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:       >> On 12/29/2025 11:49 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:       >>> On 30/12/2025 04:35, olcott wrote:       >>>       >>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition       >>>> which asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)       >>>>       >>>> Correctly paraphrased as:       >>>> a sequence of inference steps from axioms       >>>> that assert that they themselves do not exist.       >>>       >>> No they don't. That's an interpretation outside the system. The axioms       >>> merely force you to conclude that some symbol or other is not negation       >>> and/or another one is not a reference to the system itself when fools       >>> think they both /are/ those things.       >>>       >>>       >>       >> G := (F ⊬ G)       >       > That isn't the statement of G, so you start with a lie.       >       >       >> a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms       >> of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.       >>       >              (F ⊬ G)       "⊬" means that a sequence of inference steps from       F to G do not exist.              > But that statement you are trying to start with isn't a statement in F,              Since is begins with F it is in F.       That people do not usually look at this degree       of detail do not mean that I am incorrect.              > but an interpretation of the statement in F as understood in MF.       >       > All you are doing is showing you stupidity of not understanding context.       >              All the I am doing is looking at these things at       the deeper level beyond indoctrination. I am directly       examining the foundations of logic and math.              Everyone else takes these as "given" as if from       the mind of God.              > And thus you show you can't understand meaning, as meaning is based on       > context.       >              I understand meaning better then anyone else.       "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"       for this entire body is one giant semantic tautology.              --       Copyright 2025 Olcott |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca