Tarski Undefinability Theorem Succinctly Refuted

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

wtf
Posts: 840
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

Post by wtf » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:33 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:15 pm


I have no idea how to do any "better" than physics.
So you are doubling down claiming I said something I never said, after I pointed out to you that I didn't say it. Well have a nice day then.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

Post by Logik » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:36 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:05 pm
I just don't like sacred cows. Not even the sacred cows that there's something magical going on in my head. It's just physics.
wtf wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:09 pm
Can't you challenge yourself to do better?
Logik wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:15 pm
I have no idea how to do any "better" than physics.
wtf wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:33 pm
So you are doubling down claiming I said something I never said. Well have a nice day then.
Well you will forgive my faulty inference. You were unhappy with my claim that physics can explain meaning and challenged me to "do better".

I have no idea what that means.

Good day to you too. Unless you care to clarify.
Last edited by Logik on Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

Post by Atla » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:37 pm

wtf wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:16 pm
Syntax and bit flipping have no meaning. The meaning is supplied by humans.
You know, I used to believe that this is basic, blatantly obvious even to many children.

And yet here we have this "philosophy" forum, full of grown people who have no clue about it.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

Post by Logik » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:39 pm

Atla wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:37 pm
You know, I used to believe that this is basic, blatantly obvious even to many children.

And yet here we have this "philosophy" forum, full of grown people who have no clue about it.
Well, I don't know. Both of you "grown people" seem to be arguing that meaning is not in the realm of physics.

OK then. So meaning is uncaused. Go forth and chase your tail about the ontology of "meaning" like every other philosopher.

Meaning is a consequence. Like every fucking thing in this universe.

It just so it happens - it's a consequence that takes place in your brain.
Last edited by Logik on Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

wtf
Posts: 840
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

Post by wtf » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:41 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:36 pm
Well you will forgive my faulty inference. You were unhappy with my claim that physics can explain meaning and challenged me to "do better".

But you did not claim that. You claimed that bit flipping -- computation -- can explain meaning.

So now you are claiming not only that I said something I never did; but that you said something YOU never did.

wtf
Posts: 840
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

Post by wtf » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:41 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:39 pm
Well, I don't know. Both of you "grown people" seem to be arguing that meaning is not in the realm of physics.
Stop lying.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

Post by Logik » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:43 pm

wtf wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:41 pm
But you did not claim that. You claimed that bit flipping -- computation -- can explain meaning.
I didn't claim that?

Firstly bit-flipping is an instance of computation. In particular digital (boolean) computation.

Which suggests that your conception and my conception of what "computation" is are vastly different

Lambda calculus is computation. It's conceptual first. Bit-flipping is implementation/realization detail.
wtf wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:41 pm
So now you are claiming not only that I said something I never did; but that you said something YOU never did.
OK. You want to drag this into the mud clearly.

Only - I am not interested.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

Post by Logik » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:52 pm

wtf wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:41 pm
Stop lying.
Stop falsely accusing me of lying and correct my error.

Are you looking to mud-wrestle like a pig or exchange ideas?

wtf
Posts: 840
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

Post by wtf » Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:13 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:52 pm
wtf wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:41 pm
Stop lying.
Stop falsely accusing me of lying and correct my error.
I did so several times. Can't help you anymore. Why don't you just carefully re-read the thread? You'll see clearly where you put words in my mouth that I never said; and where I specifically corrected you. And where you then repeated your misrepresentations. And then where you misrepresented your OWN words, pretending you had said things you did not say.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Succinctly Refuted

Post by Logik » Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:49 pm

wtf wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:16 pm
Example. I am sitting in my favorite chair reading a favorite book. The experience brings back memories of the first time I read that book, the people I knew and the experiences I was having at the time. That's meaning.
Logik wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:45 pm
Memory recall is meaning? We can do that in algorithms.
wtf wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:59 pm
That's so disingenuous I didn't read further.
Your false accusation of "disingenuity" is absent of a phenomenological or meta-cognitive consideration.

Because "the experience brings back memories" sure has a lot of parallels to to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_(memory)
Recall in memory refers to the mental process of retrieval of information from the past. Along with encoding and storage, it is one of the three core processes of memory.
wtf wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:13 pm
And then where you misrepresented your OWN words, pretending you had said things you did not say.
Accusing me of mis-representing your words is one thing. It's possible that I misunderstood - it happens.

Pretending that you can detect when I "misrepresent" myself when I speak about my own meta-cognitive processes is a whole new level :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I am out of this dick-measuring contest. Enjoy.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

Post by Logik » Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:19 pm

wtf wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:09 pm
It could all be "just physics" but definitely not "just computation." Huge difference.
You are mistaken Conceptually the fields of computation, physics and mathematics are isomorphic.

Church–Turing–Deutsch principle
A universal computing device can simulate every physical process.
Lambda calculus
Lambda calculus is a universal model of computation
Curry-Howard correspondence
The Curry–Howard correspondence is the direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical proofs.
Do you need me to connect the dots for you?

Digital physics
Physical information
wtf wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:09 pm
But why do you care? You're no longer trying to have an intelligent conversation. Your points are weak and you're reduced to lying about what I said.
I cared (past tense) precisely because I was trying to have an intelligent conversation with somebody who seemed capable of it, but you sure went out of your way sabotaging the conversation with false accusations.

I think you owe me an apology? Won't be holding my breath though.

wtf
Posts: 840
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

Post by wtf » Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:17 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:19 pm
You are mistaken Conceptually the fields of computation, physics and mathematics are isomorphic.
Nonsense.
Logik wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:19 pm
Church–Turing–Deutsch principle
That is a BELIEF and not a FACT. Surely you know this.
Logik wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:19 pm
I think you owe me an apology? Won't be holding my breath though.
I reiterate my earlier statements. You repeatedly mischaracterized what I said. The best I can do here is change the word lie to mischaracterize.

Bottom line is that if you believe the world is a Turing machine then you would hold your set of beliefs.

I have no problem accepting that you hold the truth of the CTD thesis.

But for you to pretend it's a law of nature and not someone's conjecture is disingenuous.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

Post by Logik » Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:23 am

wtf wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:17 am
That is a BELIEF and not a FACT. Surely you know this.
Sure. In exactly the same way Evolution is a belief and not a fact.

Oh! Oh! But evolution is a physical process.
And all physical processes can be simulated on a Turing machine.

Which is why we have cellular evolutionary algorithms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_ ... _algorithm
And in general Evolutionary computation algorithms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation

So I guess Evolution is evidence FOR the CTD "belief" then?
wtf wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:17 am
But for you to pretend it's a law of nature and not someone's conjecture is disingenuous.
Seriously? All we have in science/physics are well-substantiated and polished conjectures.

All "laws of nature" are on borrowed time until a more complete theory comes around. Hello Newton's "law" of universal gravitation.
wtf wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:17 am
Bottom line is that if you believe the world is a Turing machine then you would hold your set of beliefs.
Bottom line is that ALL claims about what the world IS are ontological nonsense. Nobody has a fucking clue what the world IS.

I conceptualize the world (and therefore my mind) as a Turing machine. Did you suddenly forget that all truth is semantic?

PeteOlcott
Posts: 730
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

Post by PeteOlcott » Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:35 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:13 am
PeteOlcott wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:24 am
When one assumes that certain symbols are tied to specific logic resolution
algorithms then symbols are merely infix notation for functions on strings.
In theory this could all be translated into Lambda Calculus equivalents.

In foundations of mathematics, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophy of logic, formalism is a theory that holds that statements of mathematics and logic can be considered to be statements about the consequences of the manipulation of strings.
But you do understand that the expression/representation of strings is just language, right?

And language itself has no intrinsic meaning e.g semantics until interpreted.
I understand that is the most conventional way of looking at it, yet not the only way.
it is possible to merge the Tarski Meta-language and object language into a
single language that essentially interprets its own semantic meaning.

For example the current set of human knowledge could be encoded entirely
as relations between integers. When a human language is mapped to these
relations a human could talk to this omniscient machine. The machine would
still know what it knows entirely on the basis of its relations between integers.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

Post by Logik » Sun Apr 07, 2019 7:38 am

PeteOlcott wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:35 am
I understand that is the most conventional way of looking at it, yet not the only way.
it is possible to merge the Tarski Meta-language and object language into a
single language that essentially interprets its own semantic meaning.
Yes. This is what every programming language does.

Self-compiling compiler

You said you come from a computer science background, so I am not sure why you think this is new knowledge? Inventing/compiling your own language has been part of undergrad computer science coursework for decades.
Last edited by Logik on Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests