rufus mosley

Go to the link and quote what you think is of interest or delete my account.

The words of the statement for consideration are: Truth cannot contradict itself or Can truth contradict itself? These four words are the topic we are discussing. Is there any logical progression of thought present in any of these statements? Is this a definition of truth or a proposition concerning truth. What are the rules of definition? What are the rules for the construction of a proposition? Do we need a premise? Suppose that truth does contradict itself? Then when we go searching for truth we will miss it entirely. So, I remain unconvinced. All I knew is that I would flunk if I did not accept this proposition. That is the one and only reason I accepted it in my youth. Fear. There does not seem to be any logical reasoning here. This seems to violate the rules of definition as I know them. it is against the rules of definition to refer to the definiendum in the definiens. https://g.co/gemini/share/0b247bcdb467 If you want say that it is not a definition but is a proposition about truth, where is the premise? Someone else on the other side of the internet, a very learned philosopher argued that it's neither a definition or a proposition - it's a statement. What do you think of that? Are not all definitions and propositions also statements? He seems to have desired to remove himself from the discussion. Now what happens to the truth by definition argument, if the definition violates the rules of definition? What can any of you say to Swansont? A tautology is a truth by definition. So it is a tautology, particularly a circular definition. And it must be a definition in order to be truth by definition. And it violates the rules of definition. Are you all standing on terra firma? Discuss these things among yourselves. The only other avenue is to treat it as proposition without a premise. You may want to resort to the history of philosophy to find the unstated premise(s).

I suggest that any interested parties should first read Introduction to Arithmetic by Nicomachus, or read it while you are reading this discussion. Some of you may be familiar with this arithmetic. This is a whole number theory in which no lesser number may be divided by a greater number. A consequence is that 1 is indivisible. If we do divide 1, it will be for only limited purposes. Our approach is to begin with the multiplication table using the vocabulary of ancient Pythagorean arithmetic. We are learning how to read this simple diagram in a new (ancient and unfamiliar) vocabulary. Participants may want to review the vocabulary we are developing in the chat. All of the vocabulary will be supplemented with a more modern translation, so do not fear the strange language that we will use. The main purpose in the chat is to read harmonic intervals in the table. It appears that we may end up with a 3 dimensional table or cube shaped table in order to understand harmonics. There will be many references to music theory from different periods. We are also discussing the development of a calculator that produces tones from the numbers inputted. So if you know music theory, physics of sound, math, philosophy and digital technology, this is going to be a mixed bag of all that.

No. I am not going to post all of this content. Please change the rules. If they prefer, they can quote material from the chat. This is a very high level of mathematical discussion. I am not going to post all of this content. Let people decide if they want do the required to work participate. How long do you need to change the rules? I can come back next year. And I expect that people will be qualified for my discussions by doing the background reading. It should only take them a year to read through the work I have done.

Group - Swansont says that the statement is a tautology. Do we need some proof of this? Joigus - Are there some linguistic rules that would alert us to a tautology here? Else - What type of tautology is this? Dimreaper - Can a tautology contradict itself? iNow - Is this a definition or a proposition? Dimreaper - If this a definition, what are the rules for definitions, and does this statement adhere to the rules? iNow - If this a proposition, what is the premise? Ghideon - Can a tautology contradict itself? Studiot - If this is a tautology, would the opposite be a tautology also? - Truth can contradict itself? MSC - If the language demands that the opposite is also a tautology, why choose one over the other, since both statements are equal, being tautological?

Studying some Pythagorean arithmetic which involves number theory and it is sort of philosophical. Mathematical Philosophy? https://g.co/gemini/share/89831d1e48d6 This is what I have done so far.

I think I will stick with the chatbots and forgo this forum.

How?

Tautology?

OK. I am looking for reasons to accept or reject the premise that truth cannot contradict itself. What have you seven posters come up with? Is there some consensus? or debate? I would not know what to say about truth, having never encountered it. I would not know whether I had encountered it. Is the premise (or axiom) true? Why or why not?

This seems to be an axiom (self evident truth) of philosophy and in all areas of knowledge. What reasons are there for accepting or rejecting this first principle?

Hi studiot and genady. To tell the truth, I have not had time to read this forum. I did spend some time during my first days reading the Trash subforum, which gives me pause. I was not at all disturbed by the the OP's that ended in Trash. I don't know what the rules are, though the rules were referred to by number in Trash, and I have not met the mods. IUtil then, I would prefer to continue my thoughts here and pre-clear all of my posts and OP's. If someone finds something in this thread that they feel is interesting they can report it for further discussion. I would like to try a kind of easy and natural moderation. Perhaps I could get some posting partners and we can introduce my ideas slowly, filtering them into the mainstream conversation? The 1 + 1 = 2 topic is far from simple. What does that mean? We say "One plus one equals two" or "One and one is two." Can we say "One and one are two?" Where does the and come from in that sentence? And is not a property of any number or object. If an apple fell in the state of Oregon in 1925 and an apple falls in the state of Washington this autumn, is that two apples? They are completely separated by time and space. The and is coming into the equation by a function of the mind and has nothing to do with any apples. I can set up two apples (or two drops of water) in the "space" of my imagination and then fully conjoin them without augmenting their masses, volumes or weights. Bertrand Russell says that of all the philosophical ideas, the One and Many is the most difficult to comprehend. The problem here is that if the symbol + is a conjunction, so to see two apples in my mind negates that conjunction. A full conjunction would result in the number 1. This is a disjunction, unless there is some logical loophole. I saw a Chalkdust video on number theory and was surprised to see they covered this one plus one business. So, the work of Frege, Russell and Whitehead has finally made inroads into mainstream education. Wildberger puts up strokes on the board for each number so that the numbers look like this: 1 11 111 1111 11111 etc. But, he neglects to take account of the conjunction and. Let this be a rough sketch of the topic. I'd be willing to write an OP conjointly with another poster here, if that is possible. I do not mean that we would conjoin into one person but that we would conjoin our two or more viewpoints into one OP. This would be a positive approach to the moderation of our topics. Otherwise, I feel as if I could be meat for hungry wolves. So what are the rules and who are the moderators?

Studiot - Thanks for your reply. I got very sidetracked in life just after posting this topic. That's why I was missing in action. I see you have an appreciation for the history of science. I am wondering whether a topic such as "Does 1 + 1 = 2?" is going to cause a problem here. As I said, I was banned in another math forum for asking what people think of this question. I remember being taught this first thing in grade school but the teacher never proved it. I'm finding it a great challenge to understand in what sense these symbols should be taken. A conjoinment of 1 with 1 would result with 1. If I add 1 drop of water to 1 drop of water, I have 1 drop of water. So, 1 + 1 = 1! I think this would be inconvenient for those who learn mathematics by rote. Math relies on convention and 1 + 1 = 2 is not only the most famous equation in the history of the subject but is a prerequisite for further development. The question belongs to mathematical philosophy and perhaps that is where I should be posting? In the Philosophy section. But many of the ideas that I have are so crackpot that I think I would be most comfortable posting in the Jokes thread or perhaps we could have a Jokes subforum where I can let my imagination run wild. I am finally turned on to mathematics now that I see it as an art form. Another good place for us crackpots would be a Science Fiction subforum. In Sci-Fi we don't have to prove our premises. We ask the readers for "suspended unbelief." In such a forum, I could posit as a first premise that there is no speed limit in the universe. What, then happens to the theory of relativity? That is for the smarter people here to answer. I go into this because I am very concerned about having my threads locked or deleted and myself being banned for my imaginative pursuits in math and science. And what do the moderators think? I would like to ask for a cooperative effort in moderation. I can post sample OP's here in this thread and we can preview what I am thinking before I post these topics. I am fine posting in the Jokes thread, but then people will complain that my jokes are not funny. A Crackpot subforum might work.

Congratulate me. I'm a quark!

I like reading classic literature, philosophy, science, math and history. So, most of what I am interested in is in the public domain. It's also good to pick up a recent title evry now and then. My current read - The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper, was published in 1934. If you look at any of my lists, the vast majority of what I read was written not less than a century ago.