| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 43:08:32 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 175,377 |
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.
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
The truths of propostions are not logically certain or uncertain: they
are not logically anything!
Logic doesn't care about hwo truths of propositions are ascertained;
that only involves logic when logical inference is needed (in some way)
as a tool in evaluating a proposition.
Whether a proposition is true (in some understood universe of discourse) isn't "logical" or not.
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
The truths of propostions are not logically certain or uncertain: they
are not logically anything!
Logic doesn't care about hwo truths of propositions are ascertained;
that only involves logic when logical inference is needed (in some way)
as a tool in evaluating a proposition.
Whether a proposition is true (in some understood universe of discourse) isn't "logical" or not.
On 10/1/2025 2:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
Why don't you quit being a jerk and try to actually
understand what I am saying?
On 10/1/2025 2:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
On 10/1/2025 2:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
The truths of propostions are not logically certain or uncertain: they
are not logically anything!
Did you seem me use the term "propositions" anywhere here?
I always use the big picture "Expressions of language" and
never use the narrow minded term: propositions.
Logic doesn't care about hwo truths of propositions are ascertained;
that only involves logic when logical inference is needed (in some way)
as a tool in evaluating a proposition.
When ever I use terms I ONLY mean ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality
By logically certain I only mean impossibly false.
Whether a proposition is true (in some understood universe of discourse)
isn't "logical" or not.
Why don't you quit being a jerk and try to actually
understand what I am saying?
On 01/10/2025 21:40, olcott wrote:
On 10/1/2025 2:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
How do you derive that from anything he has said?
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/1/2025 2:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
It is not logical/illogical for cats to be or not to be animals.
The truths of propostions are not logically certain or uncertain: they
are not logically anything!
Did you seem me use the term "propositions" anywhere here?
Yes; logic was mentioned. Logic has propositions.
I always use the big picture "Expressions of language" and
never use the narrow minded term: propositions.
If the narrow-minded term "propositions" bothers you, then
kindly stay away from the narrow-minded term "logic" and "logical".
Logic doesn't care about hwo truths of propositions are ascertained;
that only involves logic when logical inference is needed (in some way)
as a tool in evaluating a proposition.
When ever I use terms I ONLY mean ...
Okay, Humpty-Dumpty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality
By logically certain I only mean impossibly false.
An obvious example of that is the Deductive Argument.
Such an argument
is true in all imaginable universes of discourse, regardless for the assignment of truth values to its propositions.
Whether a proposition is true (in some understood universe of discourse) >>> isn't "logical" or not.
Why don't you quit being a jerk and try to actually
understand what I am saying?
If you keep saying nonsense like a statement of fact about the world
being "logically true", you will not be properly understood.
Informally speaking, and only informally, something can be said to be "logically true" if it is a surprising result that is obtained by
following logic from true premises; i.e. some truth we feel that we "synthesized" by following logic from true premises about the world, so
that it feels as if it "popped out" from logic itself. Of course,
it didn't; it was buried in the premises the whole time, whose truth
isn't logical, but epistemological.
On 10/1/2025 3:54 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/1/2025 2:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
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.
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.
On 10/1/2025 3:48 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 01/10/2025 21:40, olcott wrote:
On 10/1/2025 2:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
How do you derive that from anything he has said?
I will use Socratic questioning
On 2025-10-01 16:57, olcott wrote:
On 10/1/2025 3:54 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/1/2025 2:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
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.
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.
Andr|-
On 01/10/2025 21:40, olcott wrote:
On 10/1/2025 2:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
How do you derive that from anything he has said?
On 10/1/2025 8:12 PM, Andr|- 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 <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/1/2025 2:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
On 2025-10-02, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/1/2025 8:12 PM, Andr|- 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 <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/1/2025 2:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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
How to beat around saying "I stand corrected", avoiding the actual
three words like a plague, due to ego.
reasoning, typically in areas like mathematics and formal logic.
I.e. not epistemology, as you said.
Following from true premises via valid reasoning sounds like
a deductive argument that is sound.
You know, that thing that is too narrow, not bringing in all of human knowledge into the picture.
Logical certainty refers to a state where a conclusion is
undeniably true NO MATTER HOW YOU GOT THERE.
On 2025-10-01 16:57, olcott wrote:
On 10/1/2025 3:54 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/1/2025 2:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
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.
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.
Andr|-
The science of correct reasoning certainly requires
epistemology, otherwise most human knowledge cannot
be reasoned about.
On 2025-10-02, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
The science of correct reasoning certainly requires
epistemology, otherwise most human knowledge cannot
be reasoned about.
The science of anything requires a researcher who is humble, and who
makes the utmost effort to look for reasons why their hypotheses might
be incorrect, rather than only looking for affirming evidence, rejecting
all else.
On 10/2/2025 11:43 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-02, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
The science of correct reasoning certainly requires
epistemology, otherwise most human knowledge cannot
be reasoned about.
The science of anything requires a researcher who is humble, and who
makes the utmost effort to look for reasons why their hypotheses might
be incorrect, rather than only looking for affirming evidence, rejecting
all else.
I have spent 22 years on this.
I have filled in
all the gaps.
ignorance of which is which. Personality
characteristics are never directly relevant.
On 2025-10-02, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/2025 11:43 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-02, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
The science of correct reasoning certainly requires
epistemology, otherwise most human knowledge cannot
be reasoned about.
The science of anything requires a researcher who is humble, and who
makes the utmost effort to look for reasons why their hypotheses might
be incorrect, rather than only looking for affirming evidence, rejecting >>> all else.
I have spent 22 years on this.
22 years of not humbly looking for ways you might be wrong.
If you were a proper researcher you would have been done in 22
days, if not just that many hours.
I have filled in
all the gaps.
Name one.
ignorance of which is which. Personality
characteristics are never directly relevant.
There is your problem. The scientific method is not simply a
personal characteristic.
On 10/2/2025 12:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-02, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/2025 11:43 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-02, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
The science of correct reasoning certainly requires
epistemology, otherwise most human knowledge cannot
be reasoned about.
The science of anything requires a researcher who is humble,
and who
makes the utmost effort to look for reasons why their
hypotheses might
be incorrect, rather than only looking for affirming
evidence, rejecting
all else.
I have spent 22 years on this.
22 years of not humbly looking for ways you might be wrong.
22 years of using categorically exhaustive reasoning
(that eliminate all gaps in reasoning) to reverse-engineer
the foundation of all analytical truth.
When you always think inside-the-box then like on
Stack Exchange all new ideas are rejected entirely
on the basis that they do not exactly correspond
to existing ideas.
On 10/2/2025 12:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-02, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
I have spent 22 years on this.
22 years of not humbly looking for ways you might be wrong.
22 years of using categorically exhaustive reasoning
(that eliminate all gaps in reasoning) to reverse-engineer
the foundation of all analytical truth.
There is your problem. The scientific method is not simply a
personal characteristic.
This says it all regarding the Liar Paradox,
On 2025-10-02, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/2025 12:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-02, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
I have spent 22 years on this.
22 years of not humbly looking for ways you might be wrong.
22 years of using categorically exhaustive reasoning
(that eliminate all gaps in reasoning) to reverse-engineer
the foundation of all analytical truth.
If it takes you 22 years to think you have eliminated gaps in your
reasoning about something very simple that undergraduates "get" in one
or two lectures, don't you think maybe that's a red flag?!
There is your problem. The scientific method is not simply a
personal characteristic.
This says it all regarding the Liar Paradox,
The Liar Paradox points to its own syntax and claims that it is a
falsehood. It refers to nothing external; and no point of view can
pin down its truth value.
The Halting question refers to something outside of itself, for which
there is always a right answer.
It would really behoove you to quit harping about the Liar Paradox
already.
It's really just something for entertaining children, not befitting
of eudite dialog among intellectuals.
On 02/10/2025 19:10, olcott wrote:*My whole grand opus is proven right here by is coherence* https://claude.ai/share/45d3ca9c-fa9a-4a02-9e22-c6acd0057275
On 10/2/2025 12:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-02, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/2025 11:43 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-02, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
The science of correct reasoning certainly requires
epistemology, otherwise most human knowledge cannot
be reasoned about.
The science of anything requires a researcher who is humble, and who >>>>> makes the utmost effort to look for reasons why their hypotheses might >>>>> be incorrect, rather than only looking for affirming evidence,
rejecting
all else.
I have spent 22 years on this.
22 years of not humbly looking for ways you might be wrong.
22 years of using categorically exhaustive reasoning
(that eliminate all gaps in reasoning) to reverse-engineer
the foundation of all analytical truth.
Which amounts to 22 years of not humbly looking for ways you might be
wrong. So you agree with Kaz. Good!
<snip>
When you always think inside-the-box then like on
Stack Exchange all new ideas are rejected entirely
on the basis that they do not exactly correspond
to existing ideas.
WHAT new idea?
On 10/2/2025 1:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
*My whole grand opus is proven right here by is coherence* https://claude.ai/share/45d3ca9c-fa9a-4a02-9e22-c6acd0057275
WHAT new idea?
On 02/10/2025 20:15, olcott wrote:
On 10/2/2025 1:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
*My whole grand opus is proven right here by is coherence*
WHAT new idea?
https://claude.ai/share/45d3ca9c-fa9a-4a02-9e22-c6acd0057275
An LLM replies:
--------------------------------------------------------
The first logic error is the sentence:
"So the simple prolog finally resolved the liar paradox as not a bearer
of truth."
Why it's an error: the claim contradicts the authorrCOs earlier correct concession that the Prolog example does not prove the philosophical
point. Rejecting a syntactic construction via an occurs-check is a computational diagnostics move, not a philosophical proof that the natural-language Liar lacks truth-value. The sentence conflates a model- level implementation decision with a settled metaphysical conclusion. --------------------------------------------------------
Don't bother replying here if you don't want to. You can take it up
directly with an LLM.
On 10/2/2025 2:42 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 02/10/2025 20:15, olcott wrote:
On 10/2/2025 1:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
*My whole grand opus is proven right here by is coherence*
WHAT new idea?
https://claude.ai/share/45d3ca9c-fa9a-4a02-9e22-c6acd0057275
An LLM replies:
If you meant that you spoke with the same LLM
at the same point in the conversation
--------------------------------------------------------
The first logic error is the sentence:
"So the simple prolog finally resolved the liar paradox as not
a bearer of truth."
Why it's an error: the claim contradicts the authorrCOs earlier
correct concession that the Prolog example does not prove the
philosophical point. Rejecting a syntactic construction via an
occurs-check is a computational diagnostics move, not a
philosophical proof that the natural-language Liar lacks truth-
value. The sentence conflates a model- level implementation
decision with a settled metaphysical conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------
Don't bother replying here if you don't want to. You can take
it up directly with an LLM.
*You are cheating in the same way*
On 02/10/2025 20:49, olcott wrote:
On 10/2/2025 2:42 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 02/10/2025 20:15, olcott wrote:
On 10/2/2025 1:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
*My whole grand opus is proven right here by is coherence*
WHAT new idea?
https://claude.ai/share/45d3ca9c-fa9a-4a02-9e22-c6acd0057275
An LLM replies:
If you meant that you spoke with the same LLM
at the same point in the conversation
Not what I said, and not what I meant.
--------------------------------------------------------
The first logic error is the sentence:
"So the simple prolog finally resolved the liar paradox as not a
bearer of truth."
Why it's an error: the claim contradicts the authorrCOs earlier correct >>> concession that the Prolog example does not prove the philosophical
point. Rejecting a syntactic construction via an occurs-check is a
computational diagnostics move, not a philosophical proof that the
natural-language Liar lacks truth- value. The sentence conflates a
model- level implementation decision with a settled metaphysical
conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------
Don't bother replying here if you don't want to. You can take it up
directly with an LLM.
*You are cheating in the same way*
Don't tell me. Tell your new friend.
On 10/2/2025 3:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 02/10/2025 20:49, olcott wrote:
*You are cheating in the same way*
Don't tell me. Tell your new friend.
Don't post rebuttals that you know are incorrect
and I will stop calling you a cheater.
On 02/10/2025 21:11, olcott wrote:
On 10/2/2025 3:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 02/10/2025 20:49, olcott wrote:
<snip>
*You are cheating in the same way*
Don't tell me. Tell your new friend.
Don't post rebuttals that you know are incorrect
I posted an LLM's reaction to your transcript.
On 10/2/2025 3:34 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 02/10/2025 21:11, olcott wrote:
Don't post rebuttals that you know are incorrect
I posted an LLM's reaction to your transcript.
Not all LLM's have the same basis or degree of understanding.
On 02/10/2025 22:04, olcott wrote:
On 10/2/2025 3:34 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 02/10/2025 21:11, olcott wrote:
<snip>
Don't post rebuttals that you know are incorrect
I posted an LLM's reaction to your transcript.
Not all LLM's have the same basis or degree of understanding.
I'm not advocating LLMs. You are.
Claude AI did really seem to validate my grand opus.
On 02/10/2025 22:59, olcott wrote:
<snip>
Claude AI did really seem to validate my grand opus.
I'm guessing it hasn't occurred to you to ask Claude to tear your thesis apart.
On 10/1/2025 8:12 PM, Andr|- 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 <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/1/2025 2:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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 propositionsrComeaning 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.
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.
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.
Andr|-
Unless you use the base meaning of words AS I ALWAYS DO.
Logic is most essentially the science of correct reasoning.
On 2025-10-01 20:05, olcott wrote:
On 10/1/2025 8:12 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2025-10-01 16:57, olcott wrote:
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
propositionsrComeaning 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.
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?
Andr|-
On 10/2/2025 6:50 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
And how do you determine the "base meaning" of a word other than by an
appeal to convention?
Andr|-
Frequency of use in ordinary conversation.
Thus "logic" does not refer to anything
besides the generic notion of the science
of correct reasoning.
On 2025-10-02 18:10, olcott wrote:
On 10/2/2025 6:50 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
And how do you determine the "base meaning" of a word other than by
an appeal to convention?
Andr|-
Frequency of use in ordinary conversation.
Thus "logic" does not refer to anything
besides the generic notion of the science
of correct reasoning.
I've never heard anyone other than you claim that it refers to 'the
science of correct reasoning'.
I suspect if you tracked ordinary conversation you'd find it just means something along the lines of 'things Mr. Spock would say' rather than anything specific. But in a conversation on math, or formal systems, or computational theory, the term of the art should always be assumed
(assuming you want to be understood).
Andr|-