Philosophy Now Forum

More from the realm of Constructive mathematics. Here is a consistent logical system in which both A = B AND A != B are true. Not really! The above quoted statement is itself inconsistent! Any system in which both A=B and A!=B are true is inconsistent. From Wikipedia, we have the following on consi...

So here is where i am at. I was wrong. Hi Logik. This is the first time I am exchanging with you! And you are already saying that you were wrong! Alright, I can't argue that! Averroes is right. And you also added that I am right. Alright. Thank you, but I already knew it! :) It is impossible to thi...

Hello forum members! Last time I posted the following: To all members of the forum who are interested: A statement was made but the claimer found himself/herself incapable of backing it up even when challenged. It was claimed that there can be thoughts which cannot be expressed in language. (...) My...

To all members of the forum who are interested: A statement was made but the claimer found himself/herself incapable of backing it up even when challenged. It was claimed that there can be thoughts which cannot be expressed in language. Here is one of the statements: And yet is precisely the thought...

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:09 pm

Averroes wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:00 pm (...)Write exclusively in the “high level languages” as from now; yet again I am challenging you.

I need not present a counter-argument.

Alright, so you declined the challenge. For the record, I gave you nearly two months to prove your claims as you had claimed possible. Time to move on now!

But, you aren't asking me to write an argument. You are asking me to write a counter-argument. To YOUR claim. And so I am happy to do that just as soon as you present YOUR argument (set of propositions) in lambda calculus. You are still arguing in English?! You so much wanted to abandon English and...

English (and all natural languages) are broken - their Turing-completeness can't even be verified unless their grammar is formally defined. You don't get to insist on "proof" while also insisting that it be proven in a framework which lacks the grammar and semantics to express it. If Engl...

And I will insist in turn that you be logical in English. English (and all natural languages) are broken - their Turing-completeness can't even be verified unless their grammar is formally defined. You don't get to insist on "proof" while also insisting that it be proven in a framework wh...

I am not running from it. I just insist I am scrutinized on my use of logic not English. And I will insist in turn that you be logical in English. As you are incapable of philosophizing in English anymore, then our exchange is arriving to an end. Anyway, it was an interesting discussion we have had...

So? We started it in English. We can end it in Python. We need higher order logic and stronger semantics. Language is language, right? Don’t be appealing to a bandwagon fallacy now. Just write the damn contradiction in Python already and prove me wrong. I have handed you a falsifier on a silver pla...

I can’t translate it into English or Lambda calculus. This proving my case. We are on a philosophy forum having a discussion on the philosophy of language section of the forum. We started in English, and we will end it in English so that everybody who have been following and reading on the forum ca...

By the Curry-Howard isomorphism Python is intuinistic logic. It is Lambda calculus. Show me a contradiction. Otherwise your rejection of my proof is baseless. I am still waiting for the proof. You have had failed attempts so far. When you are done post it here. I can’t translate it into English or ...

It isn’t. I am awaiting on your feedback having successfully shifted the burden of proof. OKAY! My feedback is: get back to work and prove what you had said you would prove by unholding the law of non-contradiction as is the case in intuitionistic logic. I am still waiting. By the Curry-Howard isom...

But I did prove it? Except you rejected my proof by claiming it's a contradiction. Since I reject the LNC and you don't and since you believe that all thought can be expressed in language then you should have no problem expressing the thought process (e.g ALGORITHM) by which you ASSERTED that I hav...

On your promise of proving that there are thoughts which cannot be expressed in language in intuitionistic logic? You said this previously: But I did prove it? Except you rejected my proof by claiming it's a contradiction. Since I reject the LNC and you don't and since you believe that all thought ...