Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:13 am
????? Your 'evidence' is only evidence that you can post an image of some computer program that any idiot could learn but lacks meaning without knowing the rules of THAT system's logic!
Au contraire! It's precisely because I know the rules is why I know how to break them.
I am in the business of inventing rules - you are in the business of obeying rules.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:13 am
You have some functional definition with parameters that appear to have PROPRIETARY instruction code that requires the manual to determine how it operates. IT TOO is a 'logic' that cannot function without consistency in ANY computer. As such, you cannot prove that something about logic is 'inconsistent' in general by using a specific INSTANCE using a program that REQUIRES those minimal laws in order to WORK!
Way to demonstrate you don't understand linear logic.
What do you mean by "consistency" in the time-domain?
Is a system that is consistently inconsistent... consistent...or inconsistent?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:13 am
If it was, you didn't show me anything that
proves it. I told you that I am sufficiently qualified to know by my own PRACTICE! If you think you are more the clever, then you should have no problem demonstrating what that program does when it is compiled!
I know exactly what it does because I made it do it.
The system takes the formal expression "P == P" and it evaluates it.
In fact I have shown you three different systems.
A system which evaluates the expression to Tue; a system which evaluates the expression to False and a system which randomly evaluates it to True or False.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:13 am
If you accepted Godel, you'd know that the second part of his theorem is that no system can PROVE itself.
Bullshit. You don't understand the implications of Godel. It only says that any system which can prove its own consistency is necessarily inconsistent.
My system IS inconsistent. I know that! It's by design.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:13 am
Here's falsification for you: Is there evidence that I could propose that would alter your opinion otherwise?
I haven't expressed any opinions or judgments to be falsified. I am only negating all of yours with counter-examples.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:13 am
Popper's falsification was about the fact that empirical science uses INDUCTION that cannot determine absolute truth and so he proposed that science's best aptitude is its ability to falsify particular facts. Those laws of logic laws were accepted by Popper.
Yes... Induction. Sequent calculus. Linear logic. Same thing.
What is true in Universe N is falsified (negated)[ in Universe N+1.
What is true in Universe N+1 is falsified (negated) in Universe N+1+1.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:13 am
List each coded line and tell me what that fucking program is supposed to do? Or just accept my own "Proof that I am correct" in the same way you expect me to trust your nonsense.
The fuck? I told you what the system (as a whole) is supposed to do.
It takes the formal expression "P == P" as input.
It evaluates it and returns its truth-value as output e.g True, or False.
I am not expecting you to do anything with this fact.
Accepting or rejecting it is on you.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:13 am
What does that incomplete sentence mean? I cannot even interpret it charitably. Can you rephrase?
What is there to rephrase? Proofs ARE programs. They are the exact same entities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence
And so you have before you a program which evaluates "P == P" as being False.
You can write a similar program to evaluate it as True.
Both systems (of logic) are possible.
Logics which accept the identity axiom.
Logics which reject the identity axiom.
"Laws" assign meaning.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:13 am
You are calling it 'objective' without qualification. I trust that the program is ASSIGNING meaning using a VERIFICATION PROGRAM, like Prolog (?) [Is this the program language? If not, tell me what it is so that I may at least have some means to look it up.]
Yes the program assigns meaning in the very first stanza. But so what?
You are also ASSIGNING meaning to 'P == P". You are ASSIGNING it to mean true!
I am ASSIGNING it to mean false!
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
You are not recognizing that those intial 'Laws of Logic' are the DEFINITION of "logic" as a formal system!
Yes, I am recognizing that exact thing. The initial "laws" of logic are ONE possible definition of logic. ONE of many.
There are OTHER DEFINITIONS possible!
I am demonstrating one such alternative definition!
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
It also defines what it is NOT: a random nonsensical inconsistent formula for reasoning. You are missing that it DEFINES "LOGIC".
You are missing that you don't understand HOW the ACT of definition works.
I can define logic however the fuck I want to define it. Who's to deny me my freedom to define?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
All logical systems need some consistent set of rules: the axioms of any system.
No, they don't! I have explicitly told you that I have foregone consistency in favour of para-consistency.
Why is this confusing you?
Explicitly in Reverse Mathematics one starts with the theorems first, not the axioms. So I am perfectly happy to take any logical expression/rule whatsoever. Even something that is proven to be true in some other system and negate it thus forming the foundation of a new system.
2+2=5 is false in your system? Fuck it! It's true in my system.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
The Law of Identity means that you must have SOME means of FIXING MEANING to some symbols.
And the "law" of ad-hoc polymorphism says that the same symbol can have multiple different meanings - depending on context.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
So if you want to define 'right' to mean 'wrong' in your system, you CAN. But the mechanism has to be such that IF you determine something within the system, the rules of that system must STAY THE SAME throughout.
Says who?
I showed you a system in which P == P randomly evaluates to True, or False.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
Ironically, to prove something correct about logic's supposed lack of consistency would require showing that you are INCONSISTENTLY consistent AND inconsistent simultaneously which makes your form of reasoning itself not 'reasonable'. I'd just have to stop arguing with you for proving your preference of non-rational rationality.
Ironically. The only thing I need to do in order to prove that my system is inconsistent ... is to prove that it's consistent.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
If you don't change your mind after this post, I'll just have to quit trying with you.
Spare me your efforts then. I am not here to change my mind - I am here to tell you that I am going to think however I choose to think.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
I am well aware of the paradoxical factors of language and given I have never changed a mind online (or have not been 'proven' able to with any certainty), I will not waste my time further on this.
Is there anything you agree with that I say?
I agree with everything you say, but I don't accept it.
Because I choose not to. Your way of thinking doesn't work for me.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
If you know what you wrote, tell me line by line what this supposed program does. Anyone can make up a list of apparent 'code' that doesn't mean anything.
Why?!?!
I want you tell me, line by line what your supposed brain does when it asserts that P == P is true.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
See, I can make up nonsense too. When y = "more flavor", X is false. Is this presentation "objective"? Does it MEAN anything to you?
It depends on what you mean by meaning.
It's not meaningful to me, but it may be meaningful to you - I don't know.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
I don't even KNOW that your images are a program let alone what its language and syntax rules are. Prove to me that you didn't just use an editor with a black background and red and green letters.
Well what syntax/language did you use in asserting that P == P is True?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
I argue that Totality can have this 'capacity' given it initiates from absolutely nothing.
OK. Then? Your axioms too initiate from absolutely nothing.
Assuming your axioms true is arbitrary. You can just as well negate them.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
But we are bound to rules given physics is rule-bound.
You don't even understand what rules are! Most of all you don't even understand compression; or the linear speed-up theorem!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_speedup_theorem
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
So your 'disobediance' is not about logic but an insistence in not using logic.
My insistence is in not using YOUR logic and YOUR rules.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
Logic is not different to a game that has rules. The players do not HAVE to follow the rules.
No wonder we disagree. The players are the ones who INVENT the rules.
You are in the game of following the rules. I am in the game of inventing the rules.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
But if you are supposedly playing such a game with others, either you agree to abide by them equally among everyone or you are just indicating that you don't want to play.
Bullshit. I just don't want to play by YOUR RULES.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
Truth values are indicators of 'fitness' to some comparable universal class. That is, what one defines is presumed 'in' some universal class (at the instance of discourse), it is defined 'true'; otherwise, it is 'false'.
I don't understand this notion of "universal"....
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
Are you not acting 'political' here? You are proving not interested in logic per se but in doing whatever it takes to make any form of reasoning irrational. I'm not buying in.
OK then don't buy it - I am not asking you to.
But why are you trying to make me buy YOUR logic?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:34 am
I read the rest but have no more to say. If you don't approve of anything I said above, you are NOT going to ever agree to anything I say, ...likely with intention to disagree regardless of any sincere 'truth' here.
Your definition of "truth" differs significantly from mine - how do you ever expect us to agree to anything?