The End of an Era - That of The Natural Numbers
in [Logic]
|
Prev: What are deliberately flawed & fallacious Arguments? Sophistry!
Next: sci.lang is not meant for advertising
From: James Burns on 13 May 2010 10:37 Nam Nguyen wrote: > Nam Nguyen wrote: >> herbzet wrote: >>> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>> >>>> In other word there's no absolute truth. >>> >>> That's absolutely true. >> >> Relatively speaking. > > All truths are relative, including this truth. > (Kind of rings the bell, doesn't it?) Please put this statement of yours in context. Otherwise, I may not understand it. And then, please put the context in context. And then, continue contextualizing context until you're done, of course. Thanks in advance. Jim Burns
From: Nam Nguyen on 13 May 2010 22:13 James Burns wrote: > Nam Nguyen wrote: >> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>> herbzet wrote: >>>> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>>> >>>>> In other word there's no absolute truth. >>>> >>>> That's absolutely true. >>> >>> Relatively speaking. >> >> All truths are relative, including this truth. >> (Kind of rings the bell, doesn't it?) > > Please put this statement of yours in context. > Otherwise, I may not understand it. Sure. > > And then, please put the context in context. Sure, 1 more time. > > And then, continue contextualizing context > until you're done, of course. If I'm sure at any given context, I'd be sure 1 more time. All of which means I'd be done - by induction reasoning. > > Thanks in advance. You're welcomed. *** On a more serious note, my >>>>> In other word there's no absolute truth. only meant _within the context of FOL reasoning_ there's no such thing as an absolute truth of a formula! That's all I ever meant and herbzet should have realized that and not jumped on the bandwagon Oh-Nam-is-making-philosophical- comment-again, which the "standard theorists" tend to jump, to hide the fact that nobody could have a single example of a _FOL_ absolute (formula) truth. I hope you understand the context and the situation now.
From: Nam Nguyen on 13 May 2010 23:01 Nam Nguyen wrote: > > On a more serious note, my > > >>>>> In other word there's no absolute truth. > > only meant _within the context of FOL reasoning_ there's > no such thing as an absolute truth of a formula! > > That's all I ever meant and herbzet should have realized that > and not jumped on the bandwagon Oh-Nam-is-making-philosophical- > comment-again, which the "standard theorists" tend to jump, to > hide the fact that nobody could have a single example of a _FOL_ > absolute (formula) truth. The thing escapes my understanding is why my opponents and the "standard theorists" never want to admit we only have an intuitive knowledge of the natural numbers. Why is that? Are they thinking they had a kind of knowledge only infinite beings could have? Why we claim we know something for certain while we don't know that something for certain is really ... really beyond ordinary logical reasoning!
From: Marshall on 13 May 2010 23:25 On May 13, 7:13 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > ... the fact that nobody could have a single example of a _FOL_ > absolute (formula) truth. x=x Marshall
From: Marshall on 13 May 2010 23:27
On May 13, 8:01 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > The thing escapes my understanding is why my opponents and the > "standard theorists" never want to admit we only have an intuitive > knowledge of the natural numbers. Why is that? Because it's wrong. 1+1=2 is not an intuition. Marshall |