The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:01 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:33:39 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> Define "assumption". >> >> Any declarative judgment not demonstrated in mechanically exhaustive >> terms. >> >>> Do you "believe" that truth exists? >> >> Of course. >> > >Prove it in "mechanically exhaustive terms". Prove that I believe truth exists? How? I testify that I believe it. What difference does it make anyway whether I believe truth exists? It's what I can demonstrate in mechanically exhaustive terms that matters and if you haven't seen me do that any number of times already then there's nothing I can help you with. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:10 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:33:39 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> Is there a set >>> of statements S such that forall seS s=true? >> >> No idea, Tony. There looks to be a typo above so I'm not sure exactly >> what you're asking. >I am asking, in English, whether there is a set of all true statements. No. There are predicates to which all true statements and all false statements are subject respectively but no otherwise exhaustively definable set of all true or false statements because the difference between predicates and predicate combinations in true or false statements is subject to indefinite subdivision. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:14 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:33:39 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> Is there such a thing as >>> truth, or falsity? >> >> Of course. >"Prove" logic exists, in terms that precede logic. Can't be done. You can only show that everything doable, thinkable, and knowable can only be done, thought, and known by alternatives because there is no alternative to alternatives. That's the way we mechanize logic in tautological terms. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:16 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:33:39 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> Does logic "exist". >> >> Yes. >Prove it from first principles. Unless, of course, you're just "positing". No I'm not just positing. As pointed out in the immediately preceeding post logic is mechanized in tautological terms because there is no alternative to alternatives. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:17
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:33:39 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >The difference between which duck? Whichever duck, Tony. ~v~~ |