| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John Jones
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 12:59 am Post subject: Proof and Truth |
 |
|
I cannot claim that it is true that I have taken the pill resting on my
plate if, to prove it, I look and the pill isn>t there. Even I had taken
a thousand pills off my plate, I could not determine if I had taken the
pill off my plate- there is simply no information to guide me.
The only circumstance in which I can claim that it is true that I have
taken the pill resting on my plate is if there is another thing on my
plate that announces that I have taken my pill. For example, I might see
a space on the plate that wasn>t there before. The space is 'the taken
pill'.
This little exercise is quite revealing. It indicates that
1) the absence of something is demonstrated by the presence of something
else (the 'space' on my plate, in this case).
2) The nature of proof: a proof isn>t identified as a deduction of any
sort. It is a presentation. The deduction or 'proof' is simply the word
we use for looking for that presentation.
3)It also follows that we don>t prove a truth value. There is no
'proving' of the truth of the fact that there is a space that shows that
the pill was taken. The space shows the taken pill, it does not prove it. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
MoeBlee
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 12:59 am Post subject: Re: Proof and Truth |
|
|
On Oct 31, 12:59 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]I cannot claim that it is true that I have taken the pill resting on my
plate if, to prove it, I look and the pill isn>t there. Even I had taken
a thousand pills off my plate, I could not determine if I had taken the
pill off my plate- there is simply no information to guide me.
The only circumstance in which I can claim that it is true that I have
taken the pill resting on my plate is if there is another thing on my
plate that announces that I have taken my pill. For example, I might see
a space on the plate that wasn>t there before. The space is 'the taken
pill'.
This little exercise is quite revealing. It indicates that
1) the absence of something is demonstrated by the presence of something
else (the 'space' on my plate, in this case).
2) The nature of proof: a proof isn>t identified as a deduction of any
sort. It is a presentation. The deduction or 'proof' is simply the word
we use for looking for that presentation.
3)It also follows that we don>t prove a truth value. There is no
'proving' of the truth of the fact that there is a space that shows that
the pill was taken. The space shows the taken pill, it does not prove it.
[/quote]
The obvious conclusion to be drawn here is that indeed you do need to
take your pills.
MoeBlee |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David C. Ullrich
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: Re: Proof and Truth |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:59:13 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
[quote]I cannot claim that it is true that I have taken the pill resting on my
plate if, to prove it, I look and the pill isn>t there. Even I had taken
a thousand pills off my plate, I could not determine if I had taken the
pill off my plate- there is simply no information to guide me.
The only circumstance in which I can claim that it is true that I have
taken the pill resting on my plate is if there is another thing on my
plate that announces that I have taken my pill. For example, I might see
a space on the plate that wasn>t there before. The space is 'the taken
pill'.
This little exercise is quite revealing.
[/quote]
Nowhere near as revealing as the fact that you seem to think
this has some relevance to the concepts of truth and provability
in mathematical logic.
[quote]It indicates that
1) the absence of something is demonstrated by the presence of something
else (the 'space' on my plate, in this case).
2) The nature of proof: a proof isn>t identified as a deduction of any
sort. It is a presentation. The deduction or 'proof' is simply the word
we use for looking for that presentation.
3)It also follows that we don>t prove a truth value. There is no
'proving' of the truth of the fact that there is a space that shows that
the pill was taken. The space shows the taken pill, it does not prove it.
[/quote]
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn>t about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: Proof and Truth |
|
|
David C. Ullrich wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:59:13 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com
wrote:
I cannot claim that it is true that I have taken the pill resting on my
plate if, to prove it, I look and the pill isn>t there. Even I had taken
a thousand pills off my plate, I could not determine if I had taken the
pill off my plate- there is simply no information to guide me.
The only circumstance in which I can claim that it is true that I have
taken the pill resting on my plate is if there is another thing on my
plate that announces that I have taken my pill. For example, I might see
a space on the plate that wasn>t there before. The space is 'the taken
pill'.
This little exercise is quite revealing.
Nowhere near as revealing as the fact that you seem to think
this has some relevance to the concepts of truth and provability
in mathematical logic.
[/quote]
It indicates that
1) the absence of something is demonstrated by the presence of something
else (the 'space' on my plate, in this case).
2) The nature of proof: a proof isn>t identified as a deduction of any
sort. It is a presentation. The deduction or 'proof' is simply the word
we use for looking for that presentation.
3)It also follows that we don>t prove a truth value. There is no
'proving' of the truth of the fact that there is a space that shows that
the pill was taken. The space shows the taken pill, it does not prove it. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
part
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:54 am Post subject: Re: Proof and Truth |
|
|
On Nov 2, 6:40 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:59:13 +0000, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com
wrote:
I cannot claim that it is true that I have taken the pill resting on my
plate if, to prove it, I look and the pill isn>t there. Even I had taken
a thousand pills off my plate, I could not determine if I had taken the
pill off my plate- there is simply no information to guide me.
The only circumstance in which I can claim that it is true that I have
taken the pill resting on my plate is if there is another thing on my
plate that announces that I have taken my pill. For example, I might see
a space on the plate that wasn>t there before. The space is 'the taken
pill'.
This little exercise is quite revealing.
Nowhere near as revealing as the fact that you seem to think
this has some relevance to the concepts of truth and provability
in mathematical logic.
It indicates that
1) the absence of something is demonstrated by the presence of something
else (the 'space' on my plate, in this case).
2) The nature of proof: a proof isn>t identified as a deduction of any
sort. It is a presentation. The deduction or 'proof' is simply the word
we use for looking for that presentation.
3)It also follows that we don>t prove a truth value. There is no
'proving' of the truth of the fact that there is a space that shows that
the pill was taken. The space shows the taken pill, it does not prove it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
formal logic is result of simple observations which are invariably
linked together.the reason behind association of events is either
established by experimentation or by intution. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:16 am Post subject: Re: Proof and Truth |
|
|
part wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 6:40 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
David C. Ullrich wrote:
3)It also follows that we don>t prove a truth value. There is no
'proving' of the truth of the fact that there is a space that shows that
the pill was taken. The space shows the taken pill, it does not prove it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
formal logic is result of simple observations which are invariably
linked together.the reason behind association of events is either
established by experimentation or by intution.
[/quote]
You having me on?
You work with Kant. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
part
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 9:45 am Post subject: Re: Proof and Truth |
|
|
On Nov 8, 8:17 am, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]part wrote:
On Nov 2, 6:40 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
David C. Ullrich wrote:
3)It also follows that we don>t prove a truth value. There is no
'proving' of the truth of the fact that there is a space that shows that
the pill was taken. The space shows the taken pill, it does not prove it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
formal logic is result of simple observations which are invariably
linked together.the reason behind association of events is either
established by experimentation or by intution.
You having me on?
You work with Kant.
[/quote]
not kant.there are laws of nature.some of these laws may have a common
origin or may not have.i do not believe in the hypothesis that all
laws are necessarily connected.they may work in parallel.in this i may
point out laws need certainty.
interpretations are subjective but laws are objective and binding. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: Re: Proof and Truth |
|
|
part wrote:
[quote]On Nov 8, 8:17 am, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
part wrote:
On Nov 2, 6:40 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
David C. Ullrich wrote:
3)It also follows that we don>t prove a truth value. There is no
'proving' of the truth of the fact that there is a space that shows that
the pill was taken. The space shows the taken pill, it does not prove it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
formal logic is result of simple observations which are invariably
linked together.the reason behind association of events is either
established by experimentation or by intution.
You having me on?
You work with Kant.
not kant.there are laws of nature.some of these laws may have a common
origin or may not have.i do not believe in the hypothesis that all
laws are necessarily connected.they may work in parallel.in this i may
point out laws need certainty.
interpretations are subjective but laws are objective and binding.
[/quote]
ihopeyoudonothaveproblemswithpunctuationelsewhere |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
