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 58,898 of 59,235    |
|    olcott to Bonita Montero    |
|    Re: Thought this through for 30,000 hour    |
|    30 Dec 25 12:53:34    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 12/30/2025 12:45 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:       > Am 29.12.2025 um 21:27 schrieb Richard Damon:       >> On 12/29/25 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:       >>> On 12/29/2025 1:50 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:       >>>> Am 29.12.2025 um 16:25 schrieb olcott:       >>>>> That you say that without bothering to understand       >>>>> the full depth of what I am saying is very callous.       >>>>       >>>> If someone thinks 30.000 hours about a dozen lines of code he is sick.       >>>>       >>>       >>> My 28 year goal has been to make       >>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"       >>> reliably computable.       >>>       >>> *Here is a key element of that*       >>> A system such all semantic meaning of the formal       >>> system is directly encoded in the syntax of the       >>> formal language of the formal system making       >>> ∀x ∈ L (Provable(L,x) ≡ True(L,x))       >>>       >>       >> In other words, you wasted your life trying to do something you don't       >> understand.       >>       >> Since in your system, words do not need to have their actual meaning,       >> NOTHING can be truthfully derived from the words.       >>       >> Your problem is you fundamentally don't understand the basics of what       >> you are talking about, because you CHOSE to remain ignorant of the       >> field, and chose instead to try to derive meaning by GUESSING without       >> knowledge, and calling it "first principles", not even knowing what       >> that means.       >       > Engaging with Pete's arguments in a meaningful way is just as stupid as       > his delusion.       >              Not one person was every able to find a single       mistake with my actual reasoning and you repeat       this mere ad hominem.              The biggest issue in technical forums is that       no one can think outside of the box. They construe       the foundations of math, logic and computer       science as infallible even when these foundations       of been proven to be inconsistent.                     --       Copyright 2025 Olcott |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca