Are there expressions of language that are true but are NOT true on the basis of their meaning AND also are not derived from other facts? Put slightly differently - is there another mechanism/method to determine the truth value of expressions of language? — EricH

Yes there is a TV in my living room right now is true on the basis of eyesight. — PL Olcott

So there are two distinct mechanisms to determine the truth value of a language expressions, yes?

every expression of language that is true on the basis of its meaning is either a fact or derived from a fact. — PL Olcott

Are there expressions of language that are true but are NOT true on the basis of their meaning AND also are not derived from other facts? Put slightly differently - is there another mechanism/method to determine the truth value of expressions of language?

This is ALL there is to expressions of language that are true on the basis of their meaning
(1) Some expressions of language are stipulated to be true thus providing semantic meaning to otherwise totally meaningless finite strings. These expressions are the set of facts. — PL Olcott

Here you seem to be saying that we can determine the set of facts from a well constructed dictionary.

Actual facts are expressions of language that correctly model the actual world even if everyone in the universe disagrees or no one in the universe knows them. — PL Olcott

And here you seem to be re-stating the Correspondence Theory of Truth.

I’m puzzled as to why you are posting on this amateur forum. Your ideas are groundbreaking and revolutionary. I urge you to submit your thesis to The American Philosophical Quarterly (or equivalent). If there is any validity to your ideas then of course they will print them and the name PL Olcott will be entered into the pantheon of famous philosophers along side with Aristotle, Kant, etc. Go for it PL!

First of all my complements on a very well constructed OP. Anyway, this is sort of a whimsical notion, but I'm seeing a sort of a poetic analogy between this and discussions of Quantum Physics. Just as a photon is either a wave or particle depending on how it is measured, it seems like these difference in math philosophy may all be neither wrong nor right - it depends on how the topic is approached.

Don't take this too literally :roll:

Perhaps an ignorant question but isn’t this just a variation on Occam’s Razor?

When I show how this can be coherently accomplished then the Tarski Undefinability Theorem is refuted. — PL Olcott

This is a very ambitious project - if you succeed then the name PL Olcott will become world famous.

But so far I can't make any sense of what you're saying - this is why I'm trying to get some basic terminology clear. I'll ask again. What is the difference between a "sense input" and a "sense meaning"?

Actual interaction with the world that requires sense input from the sense organs is specifically excluded from the body of analytic knowledge. — PL Olcott

A 128-bit integer GUID refers to a single unique sense meaning, thus the class living animal {dog} has its own unique GUID. — PL Olcott

I still can't make any sense out of this. What is the difference between a "sense input" and a "sense meaning"? The only way we can even know that there are such things as dogs is through sense input.

3ab2c577-7d38-4a3c-adc9-c5eff8491282 stands for the living animal dog — PL Olcott

Dogs exist as conceptual objects — PL Olcott

I still can't make any sense of this. Does the Cyc project identifier refer to

- a conceptual object
- a collection of conceptual objects (i.e., how do we know that one person's conception of a dog is the same as another's)
- a particular existing living animal that happens to be a dog
- all living animals that happen to be dogs
- other?

Dogs exist as conceptual objects even if all of reality is a mere figment of the imagination. — PL Olcott

So this whole project is merely the embodiment of people's imagination.

Only in the sense that facts can be looked up in an encyclopedia and encyclopedias can be updated with new facts. Actual interaction with the world that requires sense input from the sense organs is specifically excluded from the body of analytic knowledge. That dogs exist is analytic. That there is a small black dog in my living room right now is synthetic. — PL Olcott

You'll have to forgive this bear of little brain, but i can't make any sense of this. How do we know that dogs exist? Can we rule out the possibility of an overnight canine pandemic that killed every dog on the planet via analytic statements? Not that I can see. The only way to determine this is via sense input.

apologies if that came across as a personal criticism - not my attention. I just skimmed your post and missed your distinction.

Other than that- see my response to the OP.

Why don’t classical and quantum physics go together? — Wolfgang

Classical and quantum physics go together quite well. You can read a very technical discussion here (which I don't pretend to fully understand) - but the essence of this is that "So after averaging out the quantum-behaviour you just get classical mechanics."

Now if you're looking for things which don't go together, one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics is the inability to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity,

But perhaps I'm not following you.

Seems like hair splitting to me - the equation is deterministic but when you use it the results aren't. But OK.

“Features common to Copenhagen-type interpretations include the idea that quantum mechanics is intrinsically indeterministic,”

Just scroll down to the section on Copenhagen

Every physicist agrees that the schrodinger equation is deterministic”

Not sure about that

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations

That is not quite correct. The job of the president (amongst other things) is to insure that federal laws are enforced. Trump is being charged with breaking state laws under which the president does not have authority. Trump has been arguing in court that even tho these are state laws they fall within the “outer perimeter” of his responsibilities. I’m skeptical of this line of reasoning but I’m not a constitutional scholar -and neither are you

I am likely an outlier in this conversation. I see two groups of people who have been buffeted by historic forces outside their control who are struggling to survive. It is an ongoing tragedy for everyone that shows no signs of ever resolving.

This Sunday's NY Times gives an excellent historic overview of the events that lead up to 1948. Strongly recommend that - even if you are familiar with the basics - folks read this to ground the discussion in the historical facts.

First, I'm not a physicist which is why I linked you the material to read. But I think what you're looking for is that we either do not know the exact mechanisms or we are unable to know after the fact. Our lack of knowledge or inability is of course not enough to declare it as a first cause however. That's because we've clearly defined what a first cause is so can easily identify it. — Philosophim

I still have not communicated. I'll try one more time. BTW - not that it's truly relevant but I was a physics major in college (albeit not a very good physicist). I gave the example of an atom decaying because it's easy to visualize - but in fact this is only one of many examples in physics where causality falls apart.

Anyway your definition of first cause seems to have two components - firstly that is is the beginning of a causal chain and secondly that it must fit into your definition of random - i.e. the atom can decay into a refrigerator.

While the decay of an atom is not random per your definition, if is completely and totally random with respect to the time at which it decays. It could decay 10 seconds from now or 10 billion years from now - but there is no prior event which determines when this happens. This is not a matter of lack of knowledge or our inability to measure something. When quantum mechanics were first formulated there was intense discussion/debate amongst the scientific community about what this meant. We have Einstein's famous quote that "[God] doesn't play dice' . But it has been proven over and over again that this is how the universe works - and Bell's Theorem has removed all reasonable doubt. *

we do not know the exact mechanisms — Philosophim

We know the mechanism - and the randomness in outcomes is baked into the mechanism. This is not like rolling the dice or flipping a coin - these can be predicted with sufficiently accurate measuring systems.

Every time an atom decays it is the start of a new causal chain.

So this gets to your second element - the lack of complete and total randomness in outcomes. And here we are getting into metaphysical definitions about which I have no opinion. I leave that part of the discussion between you and @Metaphysician Undercover.

I've said all I can say here - I give you the last word.

----------------------------------
* In the interest of completeness it should be noted that there are still a small number of folks in the scientific community who are trying to keep some notion of causality alive - but at best causality is on life support.

Perhaps I'm not following you, but it seems to me that you're not addressing the random nature of these events.

there is too much internal energy within an atom due to a proton, electron imbalance, there is not enough force to keep the atom together. — Philosophim

This describes the necessary conditions for decay to occur, but what is the specific event/cause X that causes the specific Y at that specific time?

Could a quark simply appear somewhere in the universe than vanish out five seconds later, all without a prior cause? — Philosophim

What's your answer? Yes or no?

For example, if a first cause is possible, can it not happen any time? Is it not unlimited in to what it could be? Could a quark simply appear somewhere in the universe than vanish out five seconds later, all without a prior cause? — Philosophim

I asked you this before and never got a response, so I'll try again. Using your terminology from the OP, let Y be an atom radioactively decaying into another atom. Is there an X that caused this Y?

Here’s a better quote because we don’t want to accidentally spread a little misinformation.

So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

And of course, as is evidenced by the transcript, he’s looking for fraudulent ballots, the ones that were shredded, and so on. — NOS4A2

I don't see how you can conclude from this statement that he's looking for fraudulent ballots. If he were truly looking for fraudulent ballots then he could have said something like this:

"My information says that there was significant fraud in the election. AlI want is to verify that the election was legitimate and any fraudulent ballots tossed. I believe I won, but if all fraudulent ballots are thrown out and I still lost, then at least I will know I lost legitimately and not through fraud."

The fact that he says (erroneously) that he won and he does not need all supposedly fraudulent ballots thrown out, just enough to give him a victory? That's the give away.

- - - - - - -
As a humorous aside, Trump's statement is incoherent. "One more than we have"? Huh? That would literally mean he wanted Raffensberger to find 1 additional vote. What he meant to say was "that would be one more vote than Biden."

Jesus born a Jew and within such a shitty way of life and tradition rejected the whole of the Jewish tradition and faith by representing God's undying love and faithfulness. — Vaskane

In Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus clearly states that you should obey all the laws of the Old testament:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Tempral causality simply means that a prior event is the reason why a current event is happening. — Philosophim

OK. So let the current event be the radioactive decay of an atom at time T. What is the specific prior event that caused the decay of that atom at that time?

What is the distinction between determinism and causality?

With 20/20 hindsight "appealing" is not the best choice of words - it goes beyond that.

In superdeterminism even your thinking is predetermined. Every last thought, emotion, sensation you have is predetermined. Your back itches? Predetermined. You replied to this post? Predetermined. You think I'm right (or wrong)? Predetermined.

Since you have no control over your thoughts there is no way to tell if anything is real. You could be a brain in a jar, you could be a robot, you could be a subject in an experiment run by aliens from another galaxy, or perhaps a supernatural being who controls everything in the physical universe could be controlling your thoughts, etc

So if nothing is real maybe you should be a nihilist? But even that very thought was predetermined.

But given that everything we currently know shows that the universe is random (at least at the quantum level)? I go with the evidence.

Bell's theorem assumes that free will already exist, it used that to prove that true randomness exist. I'm with Einstein on this one. — mentos987

We cannot logically rule out superdeterminism but as a fact based person I go with the evidence. And as it says in the WIkipedia article, 'any hypothetical superdeterministic theory "would be about as plausible, and appealing, as belief in ubiquitous alien mind-control"'.

You may be right that OPs version of causality requires determinism. — mentos987

Agree.

“God does not play dice with the universe” --Albert Einstein — mentos987

Einstein got it wrong. EPR supposedly showed flaws in quantum mechanics. But . . .

The more we learn, the less random the universe appears. — mentos987

It's the opposite. Bell's theorem showed that there are no hidden local variables.

the reason we can't do the same with decay is likely that we lack the data/knowledge to do so. — mentos987

The lack of data/knowledge is a key feature of quantum mechanics. That's how the universe works.

Per the OP there needs to be a specific X that "causes" Y. But perhaps the OP is using a different definition of causality.

I would add that radioactive decay is only one of many phenomena at the quantum level that are random. Double slit experiment, etc, etc

If there truly was no prior cause, then yes. I'm fairly certain that radioactive decay has pretty clear causes though. — Philosophim

Over time radioactive decay behaves in a statistically predictable manner, but each event is completely random and uncaused. Going back to your OP, if Y is the decay of an atom at a particular point in time, then there is no specific X that caused Y.

Perhaps you are using a different definition of causality - but you need to clarify/explain your reasoning.

No, it is random by statistics. It is not actually violating the laws of physics. — Philosophim

Well yes, that was my point. But just to be clear, the statistics only work in the aggregate level. Each individual atom that decays does so in the absence of any prior event.

Something without prior cause exists, simply because it does. There is no prior reason. — Philosophim

Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim

I'm clearly missing something. The conclusion that I get from reading these two statements is that there exists in the physical universe multiple "first causes". I.e., all those atoms that come into existence via radioactive decay have no prior cause for their creation, therefore they are all "first causes"?

Either all things have a prior cause for their existence — Philosophim

There are "things" which do not have a specific prior cause for their existence. When an atom decays radioactively from one element to another there is no prior event or cause for this to happen - it is completely random.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Hmm, just out of curiosity could you point to specific examples?

Let's try another approach. The big oil companies have billions of dollars at their disposal. They can afford to hire any number of top climatologists. If they could demonstrate - using good science - that

- Global warming is not happening at all
- It's happening but it's caused by some hitherto unknown natural phenomena

that person or persons would become among the most famous scientists who ever lived. Why have they (big oil companies) not done this?

The current trend of climate change fits perfectly into the prehistorical pattern of climate change, so why is it now attributed to human activity as opposed to natural causes as it is in every previous case? — Merkwurdichliebe

This is simply not true. The change in climate over last 150 years or so (since start of industrial age) do not fit into any known previous pattern and cannot be accounted for by any theory or hypothesis that involves natural processes only. When you factor in the additional C02 and CH4 the numbers work out.

As noted above, I think, like 12*12=144, this is an objective truth known by a subject. — Leontiskos

The words true/truth have very different meanings/usages in math vs talking about the real world of human interactions.

As I understand things, 12 * 12 = 144 is NOT an objective truth, instead it is a mathematical statement that can be proven to be true by applying the axioms of Peano Math. I say this acknowledging that mathematical realism considers this to be objectively true, but I somehow doubt that you are invoking mathematical realism in your statements.

Alternatively, If you were to say "I have 12 cartons of eggs each of which has 12 eggs in it, therefore I have 144 eggs?" That statement would be objectively true.

Just to be clear, when I say "objectively true" I am using the Correspondence Theory of Truth. If you are a witness in a USA court and you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - you are using the Correspondence Theory of Truth.

But maybe you have a different definition/usage of the words true/truth.

These are all huge red flags indicating dictatorial ambitions. I just don't see how a Trump supporter can be unaware of all of this -- or, if aware, then unconcerned. — GRWelsh

While it cannot be proved with 100% certainty, all indications are that they (Trump supporters) approve of Trump's authoritarianism.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/23/trump-america-authoritarianism-420681

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_AuthPanel_011921/

But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times. — Lionino

I did a quick search in NY Times. Dozens of articles or opinion pieces on microplastics. Here's one I did not bother checking BBC, but I'm confident that you will find plenty as well.

It's a race to see how mankind will destroy this habitable planet we live on. Pollution vs. habitat destruction vs. climate change. Any one of these will be sufficient. My vote is on a combination.

“ The majority opinion is so stupid and unjust, and the dissenting opinions are more originalist (some of which call out the majority’s misreading of the constitution),”

So should an originalist judge should use the historical definitions of the terms? Yes/no/other?

Nice, definitions from the 19th century. Thanks for clearing that up. — NOS4A2

Now that he [Trump] has put us all in this situation, the U.S. Supreme Court – and especially the Roberts majority – has a real dilemma on its hands. It has advertised itself as being a textualist and originalist court, in which the words say what they mean and were intended to mean when adopted.

Given that the 6 conservative justices on SCOTUS espouse some form of originalism, they (the conservative justices) must use these definitions if they wish their rulings to be consistent with their legal philosophies.

it's going to be interesting. Will politics trump principals? My prediction is that the conservative justices will find some way to wave their hands and rule against Colorado. But it would make me very happy to be wrong.