On 9/16/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 9/16/2024 7:26 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
The amount of utter nonsense one might discover in USENET is typified
by a thread titled "The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated
relations between finite strings". It's even doubtful there is an
agreed upon meaning of "linguistic truth". Is it something to do with
truths expressed in language, truths about language, or something else?
In fact "truth" isn't so easy to define either. Is it a time
independent fact, something believed by a corespondent, or something
else?
This is a trivial example of what happens when unqualified folks want
to define things that have been considered for millennia by some of
the finest human minds that we know of without resolution as yet.
Occasionally one of the hoi polloi will solve one of the "big ones"
and be elevated to the Parthenon of the Greats but don't hold your
breath.
I remember reading a book by Karl von Frisch about bees and how they
communicate the location of pollen sources through ritualized dances.
(He received a Nobel Prize for his works.) Since any, and I repeat
any, communication mechanism, involves a language we can conclude that
only a shit-for-brain moron would look for a stipulation in the
evolution of bees and their ancestors over geological time periods.
Oh! And by the way, what language did bees and their ancestors use to
make these stipulations? And what are the finite strings within dances
that are stipulated? By whom? How?
And of course there is the communications of flowers to bees. First
off, did you know that bees can see in color but that there color
receptors are for different wave lengths than ours? Bee color vision
is not our RGB; rather it is based on R G BP, where BP stands for bee
purple, and is in the ultraviolet spectrum where we and most animals
cannot detect it. It turns out that many flowers color pathways on
their petal insides with lines that are paths that show a bee where
the pollen is. (Just stay on the yellow brick road.) And that children
is how flowers tell bees how to cross pollinate them while also
shouting there's food there. Once again I ask what finite strings and
how were they stipulated?
What I say seems like nonsense until you try to find a
counter-example and cannot. Here is the seed of my idea.
But, you have proven yourself to be just a LIAR, as your "Halt Decider"
Fails because you don't know what the words mean, and your "truth
predicte" isn't one because you don't know what the words mean, and you arguement against Godel just shows you don't know what the words mean.
In other words, you are just proving you don't know what you are talking
about.
By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic
expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such
relations, etc. (with a similar hierarchy for extensions), and that
sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the relation
R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of types
fitting together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)