Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #644438 > unrolled thread

Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-06 10:10 -0700
    Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-06 10:47 -0700
      Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-07 09:29 -0700
        Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-07 11:08 -0700
          Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-08 18:32 -0700
        Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-07 19:28 -0700
          Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-08 07:20 -0700
        Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-08 12:53 -0700
          Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-09 10:50 -0700
          Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-10 18:01 -0700
            Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-10 18:15 -0700
              Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-11 07:41 +0200
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-10 23:37 -0700
                  Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-11 00:15 -0700
                  Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-11 14:23 +0200
                    Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-11 06:33 -0700
                      Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-11 07:00 -0700
                      Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-11 19:52 +0200
                        Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-11 17:16 -0700
                          Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-11 22:15 -0700
                          Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-12 07:36 +0200
                            Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-12 00:03 -0700
                              Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-12 11:14 +0200
                                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-12 02:22 -0700
                                  Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-12 13:59 +0200
                                    Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-12 09:38 -0700
                                      Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-12 18:46 +0200
                                        Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-12 10:04 -0700
                                          Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-12 21:33 +0200
                        Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-12 11:31 +0200
                          Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-12 10:29 -0700
                            Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-13 09:46 +0200
                              Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-13 08:38 -0700
                                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-13 12:59 -0700
                                  Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-13 13:06 -0700
                                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-17 08:59 +0200
                                  Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-17 08:56 +0200
                                  Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 08:08 -0700
                                    Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science x3 <x@x.net> - 2026-04-17 15:31 -0700
                                      Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 17:34 -0700
                                    Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-18 09:58 +0200
                                      Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-18 07:29 -0700
                                  Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-18 01:29 -0700
            Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-13 13:55 -0700
              Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-20 14:06 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-20 19:22 -0700
              Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 12:48 -0500
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 20:48 -0700
                  Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 08:48 -0500
                    Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 07:07 -0700
                      Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 09:17 -0500
                        Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 09:42 -0700
                          Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 12:55 -0500
                            Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 16:21 -0700
                              Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 19:07 -0500
                                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 07:18 -0700
                                  Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 07:42 -0700
                                  Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 10:37 -0500
                                    Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 14:07 -0700
                                      Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 18:10 -0500
                                    Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 14:10 -0700
              Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-02 21:46 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 09:06 -0700
              Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-07 10:17 -0700
                Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-25 11:12 -0700
                  Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 08:44 -0700
                    Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 08:48 -0700
                      Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science squalk <sq@net.invalid> - 2026-06-05 19:43 +0100
                        Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 12:11 -0700
                          Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 14:55 -0700
                            Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 20:08 -0700
                              Re: Theatheory: super-theory and natural science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-06 14:38 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#644560

On 4/12/2026 2:16 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/11/2026 10:52 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>
>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>
>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>
> 
> Who says they don't?

Cambridge dictionary, for instance.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/science

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644561

On 04/11/2026 10:36 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> On 4/12/2026 2:16 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 04/11/2026 10:52 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>
>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>
>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>
>>
>> Who says they don't?
>
> Cambridge dictionary, for instance.
>
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/science
>

"Ogg find one fire, make two fires.
Rain come, fire leave. Ogg win prize."

That article doesn't say anything about monkeys. According
to some modal, temporal, relevance logic, it doesn't dictate
that primates can't evolve.

Anyways, with a constant, consistent, complete, and concrete theory:
now humans don't need any "A.I." telling them what's "true".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644562

On 4/12/2026 9:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/11/2026 10:36 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>> On 4/12/2026 2:16 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2026 10:52 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>>
>>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who says they don't?
>>
>> Cambridge dictionary, for instance.
>>
>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/science
>>
> 
> "Ogg find one fire, make two fires.

Monkeys, unfortunately,  don't use either
fire or numbers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644563

On 04/12/2026 02:14 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> On 4/12/2026 9:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 04/11/2026 10:36 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2026 2:16 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 04/11/2026 10:52 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who says they don't?
>>>
>>> Cambridge dictionary, for instance.
>>>
>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/science
>>>
>>
>> "Ogg find one fire, make two fires.
>
> Monkeys, unfortunately,  don't use either
> fire or numbers.
>

Monkey see, Monkey do.

Anyways, who cares, just saying that "science" is
"natural" in a conscious sense of learning,
this is for humans and other large, competent,
conscientious, co-operative reasoners, who given
the sort of paleo-classical post-modern account
of a paradox-free reason, may agree, and then,
_insist_, that it's so.

So, we don't need apes or bots.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644568

On 4/12/2026 11:22 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/12/2026 02:14 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>> On 4/12/2026 9:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2026 10:36 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2026 2:16 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 04/11/2026 10:52 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Who says they don't?
>>>>
>>>> Cambridge dictionary, for instance.
>>>>
>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/science
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Ogg find one fire, make two fires.
>>
>> Monkeys, unfortunately,  don't use either
>> fire or numbers.
>>
> 
> Monkey see, Monkey do.

Monkey natural.
Science not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644570

On 04/12/2026 04:59 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> On 4/12/2026 11:22 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 04/12/2026 02:14 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2026 9:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 04/11/2026 10:36 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/2026 2:16 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 10:52 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>>>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>>>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>>>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who says they don't?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cambridge dictionary, for instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/science
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ogg find one fire, make two fires.
>>>
>>> Monkeys, unfortunately,  don't use either
>>> fire or numbers.
>>>
>>
>> Monkey see, Monkey do.
>
> Monkey natural.
> Science not.
>

The idea of "axiomless natural deduction" and "mono-heno-theory"
for "thea-theory" is that any sort of reasoner will arrive at
more-or-less the same accounts of logic and mathematics, as about
objective reality, and even language, about subjective reality.

Then, where physics is usually enough deemed "a study of objective
reality", then also it's figured there's exactly one proper
mathematical physics to be discovered, not invented.

Of course, there are all the many various personal and individual
perspectives and opinions and ways to relay those, while that all
these may yet attain to an actual perspective in their projections
of being in the universe at all.

Then, it's also even so for language. "Science is as science does."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644571

On 4/12/2026 6:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/12/2026 04:59 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>> On 4/12/2026 11:22 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 04/12/2026 02:14 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2026 9:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 04/11/2026 10:36 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2026 2:16 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 10:52 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>>>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>>>>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>>>>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>>>>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who says they don't?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cambridge dictionary, for instance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/science
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ogg find one fire, make two fires.
>>>>
>>>> Monkeys, unfortunately,  don't use either
>>>> fire or numbers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Monkey see, Monkey do.
>>
>> Monkey natural.
>> Science not.
>>
> 
> The idea of "axiomless natural deduction" and "mono-heno-theory"
> for "thea-theory" is that any sort of reasoner will arrive at
> more-or-less the same accounts of logic and mathematics, as about
> objective reality, and even language, about subjective reality.

The idea is ignorant and naive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644572

On 04/12/2026 09:46 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> On 4/12/2026 6:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 04/12/2026 04:59 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2026 11:22 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 04/12/2026 02:14 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/2026 9:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 10:36 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/12/2026 2:16 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 10:52 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>>>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>>>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>>>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>>>>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>>>>>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>>>>>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>>>>>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who says they don't?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cambridge dictionary, for instance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/science
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Ogg find one fire, make two fires.
>>>>>
>>>>> Monkeys, unfortunately,  don't use either
>>>>> fire or numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Monkey see, Monkey do.
>>>
>>> Monkey natural.
>>> Science not.
>>>
>>
>> The idea of "axiomless natural deduction" and "mono-heno-theory"
>> for "thea-theory" is that any sort of reasoner will arrive at
>> more-or-less the same accounts of logic and mathematics, as about
>> objective reality, and even language, about subjective reality.
>
> The idea is ignorant and naive.
>

It gives a modal temporal relevance logic
and geometry after the fact.

Then, as well, the "Atlas of Mathematical Independence" about
there being at least three models of continuous domains ("real
numbers") for mathematics, and at least three law(s) of large
numbers, probability limit theorems, Cantor spaces, and so on,
one can read from above in this thread about how profound this
seems to the reasoners, and how they maintain it is so, and
that it's necessary to make the claims of mathematics itself.

Otherwise you get a "Giant Monster of Independence", mathematics
is fragmented (and the fragments contradict each other), there
is no notion of true logic, the uses of words in the language
can't have their meaning, these kinds of accounts after the
inductive ignorance of partial half-Aristotleans and half-Hegelians
which aren't a quarter of either, are broken and lie to each other.

The physics then: the usual account has that the real laws of
physics are the same everywhere. Then it's a matter of the
mathematical physics and the super-classical accounts of the
continuum mechanics to figure that out.


Anyways, if you happen to have access to one of those reasoners
that will ingest larger text files, or some hundreds kibibytes,
paste the dialogues in, they'll readily interpret it for you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644574

On 4/12/2026 7:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/12/2026 09:46 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>> On 4/12/2026 6:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 04/12/2026 04:59 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2026 11:22 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 04/12/2026 02:14 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2026 9:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 10:36 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2026 2:16 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 10:52 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>>>>>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>>>>>>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Who says they don't?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cambridge dictionary, for instance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/science
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Ogg find one fire, make two fires.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Monkeys, unfortunately,  don't use either
>>>>>> fire or numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Monkey see, Monkey do.
>>>>
>>>> Monkey natural.
>>>> Science not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The idea of "axiomless natural deduction" and "mono-heno-theory"
>>> for "thea-theory" is that any sort of reasoner will arrive at
>>> more-or-less the same accounts of logic and mathematics, as about
>>> objective reality, and even language, about subjective reality.
>>
>> The idea is ignorant and naive.
>>
> 
> It gives a modal temporal relevance logic
> and geometry after the fact.

That it's telling you what you
want to hear doesn't mean it's
not ignorant or naive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644564

Am Samstag000011, 11.04.2026 um 19:52 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>
>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>
>>
>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
> 
> Why don't monkeys have any science?
> 

They have, but not yet have invented the printing press.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644573

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am Samstag000011, 11.04.2026 um 19:52 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> > On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> >>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> >>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
> >>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
> >>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
> >>>> and here, "logic".
> >>>
> >>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
> >>> science make an oxymoron.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
> >> The only reason people think science is synthetic
> >> is because they were told some vague reasoning
> >> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
> >
> > Why don't monkeys have any science?
> >
> 
> They have, but not yet have invented the printing press.
> 
> TH

Well, how did the monkies come up with the Complete Works of Shakespeare
then? 

they had to press the ink on the paper...with a machine...like a
typewriter.

pressing ink on paper is a printing press.

 


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644576

Am Sonntag000012, 12.04.2026 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am Samstag000011, 11.04.2026 um 19:52 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>
>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>
>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>
>>
>> They have, but not yet have invented the printing press.
>>
>> TH
> 
> Well, how did the monkies come up with the Complete Works of Shakespeare
> then?

Monkeys cannot speak very well.

But some gorillas have learned to 'speak' with hand signs.

But that is difficult to print, anyhow.

Possibly you could teach a gorilla to use a printing press, but I have 
doubts about their possibility to write, if the gorilla cannot speak.

But maybe a system based on pictograms could be a way to allow the apes 
to express their emotions, transfer that to some printable form and 
subsequently squeeze it on paper.

TH

...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644580

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am Sonntag000012, 12.04.2026 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> Am Samstag000011, 11.04.2026 um 19:52 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> >>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
> >>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
> >>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
> >>>>>> and here, "logic".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
> >>>>> science make an oxymoron.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
> >>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
> >>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
> >>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
> >>>
> >>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
> >>>
> >>
> >> They have, but not yet have invented the printing press.
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> > Well, how did the monkies come up with the Complete Works of Shakespeare
> > then?
> 
> Monkeys cannot speak very well.
> 
> But some gorillas have learned to 'speak' with hand signs.
> 
> But that is difficult to print, anyhow.
> 
> Possibly you could teach a gorilla to use a printing press, but I have
> doubts about their possibility to write, if the gorilla cannot speak.
> 
> But maybe a system based on pictograms could be a way to allow the apes
> to express their emotions, transfer that to some printable form and
> subsequently squeeze it on paper.
> 
> TH
> 
> ...

You obvisoluly never heard of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem


look at the picture of a monkey who cannot speak but can type...




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644581

On 04/13/2026 08:38 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am Sonntag000012, 12.04.2026 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am Samstag000011, 11.04.2026 um 19:52 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They have, but not yet have invented the printing press.
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> Well, how did the monkies come up with the Complete Works of Shakespeare
>>> then?
>>
>> Monkeys cannot speak very well.
>>
>> But some gorillas have learned to 'speak' with hand signs.
>>
>> But that is difficult to print, anyhow.
>>
>> Possibly you could teach a gorilla to use a printing press, but I have
>> doubts about their possibility to write, if the gorilla cannot speak.
>>
>> But maybe a system based on pictograms could be a way to allow the apes
>> to express their emotions, transfer that to some printable form and
>> subsequently squeeze it on paper.
>>
>> TH
>>
>> ...
>
> You obvisoluly never heard of...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
>
>
> look at the picture of a monkey who cannot speak but can type...
>
>
>
>

Also cigarettes and perhaps a pipe. It's a usual four-panel
cartoon, monkeys at desks typing, monkey at desk typing,
monkey stops typing and stares into space, last panel monkey
has reading glasses, a cigarette, scratching his head and
a thought ballon "How should I phrase this?"

_Thought_, is a mental process. It's beyond the planaria or
flatworm or drosophilia or even the zebra fish, the ommatidium
of a bee, it's more than stimulus and response, since it refers
to an abstract realm, its contents are more than physical, they're
environmental, and the sum of their influences.

So, no two monkeys are alike.

Then, the idea that it scratches its head in thought, then
that it has a cigarette which is a sort of RAM doubler of
the brain, has that these habits or affectations leave it
to the enter the state of _thought_, to enter and leave
the state of thought.

So, when the thought is relevant to an event, it's either
a familiar event or an unfamiliar event. The familiar events
either do or don't falsify held theories, and unfamiliar events
either do or don't introduce new theories, and do or don't
falsify old theories. They either do or don't. Then, memory
and recall, or lack thereof, also are plainly involved, about
the state of the "conscious" or the "consciousness", the
conscious and deliberate reasoning over matters of perceived
fact about expectations or estimations of theory, or hypothesis.

Entering or leaving the state of thought then makes either
reference or reinforcement or recreation of relevance to
a given task, then whether that's thought or recall,
or experiment (for example from the purposeful or the desperate).

So, there may be an "infinite monkey hypothesis" that a monkey
has a theory and is doing science.

In the old days, or, long old days, it used to be a question
besides whether non-humans "thought" whether they even "felt",
there were mad beasts and gentle beasts yet not angry beasts
or happy beasts. Then, at some point in time it was recognized
that non-humans of the, higher life form at least have feelings
and may have thoughts and then as with regards to whether they
have souls and thus represent life like human life, it's generally
given that beasts have feelings and thoughts, and to some degree
some spark of soul.


Then, the idea of souls and beasts also generally includes the
idea of animals or animalcules being independent creatures,
i.e. that a simulacrum is not even a beast. Then, the idea
that there's basically an independent reality (and not,
"living in a simulation" say), then is for that "machine
consciousness" is an own sort of account, then that the
reasoning about the rhetoric of consciousness readily arrives
at pondering the questions.

Then there's a usual account of Searle's or "the Chinese Room",
here that "inference is as inference does".


So, anyways, here there's an entire theory consider where,
for example, to begin, instead of the law of excluded middle
there's a principle of inverse, which can contemplate and
deliberate upon the law of principle of excluded middle,
and there's a principle of _thorough_ reason, so that
conflicting or confusing inductive empirical accounts
are ignore-able as they simply are simply ignorant,
besides the plain stipulation and model of their logical fact.

Then there's "ex falso nihilum" instead of "ex falso quodlibet",
though there's a simple model of mistakes as examples of errors,
the discovery of which is one aspect of "learning", the, "un-learning".

Thusly, quasi-modal logic and material implication are put in
a box and have no say about the truth tables themselves,
only for convenient scratch-pads of tallies.


Then, if you read, for example, the recent account with RF and GG
about the "dually-self-infraconsistent" the "paraconsistent dialetheic
ur-element", then that basically is a few lines added to Hegel's
monumental Wissenschaft der Logik ("Science of Logic"), giving
"Being" and "Nothing", and, Aristotle won't be made a fool, and
also the theory this "theatheory" gives Euclid's geometry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644582

On 04/13/2026 12:59 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/13/2026 08:38 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>> Am Sonntag000012, 12.04.2026 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Samstag000011, 11.04.2026 um 19:52 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They have, but not yet have invented the printing press.
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>> Well, how did the monkies come up with the Complete Works of
>>>> Shakespeare
>>>> then?
>>>
>>> Monkeys cannot speak very well.
>>>
>>> But some gorillas have learned to 'speak' with hand signs.
>>>
>>> But that is difficult to print, anyhow.
>>>
>>> Possibly you could teach a gorilla to use a printing press, but I have
>>> doubts about their possibility to write, if the gorilla cannot speak.
>>>
>>> But maybe a system based on pictograms could be a way to allow the apes
>>> to express their emotions, transfer that to some printable form and
>>> subsequently squeeze it on paper.
>>>
>>> TH
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>> You obvisoluly never heard of...
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
>>
>>
>> look at the picture of a monkey who cannot speak but can type...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Also cigarettes and perhaps a pipe. It's a usual four-panel
> cartoon, monkeys at desks typing, monkey at desk typing,
> monkey stops typing and stares into space, last panel monkey
> has reading glasses, a cigarette, scratching his head and
> a thought ballon "How should I phrase this?"
>
> _Thought_, is a mental process. It's beyond the planaria or
> flatworm or drosophilia or even the zebra fish, the ommatidium
> of a bee, it's more than stimulus and response, since it refers
> to an abstract realm, its contents are more than physical, they're
> environmental, and the sum of their influences.
>
> So, no two monkeys are alike.
>
> Then, the idea that it scratches its head in thought, then
> that it has a cigarette which is a sort of RAM doubler of
> the brain, has that these habits or affectations leave it
> to the enter the state of _thought_, to enter and leave
> the state of thought.
>
> So, when the thought is relevant to an event, it's either
> a familiar event or an unfamiliar event. The familiar events
> either do or don't falsify held theories, and unfamiliar events
> either do or don't introduce new theories, and do or don't
> falsify old theories. They either do or don't. Then, memory
> and recall, or lack thereof, also are plainly involved, about
> the state of the "conscious" or the "consciousness", the
> conscious and deliberate reasoning over matters of perceived
> fact about expectations or estimations of theory, or hypothesis.
>
> Entering or leaving the state of thought then makes either
> reference or reinforcement or recreation of relevance to
> a given task, then whether that's thought or recall,
> or experiment (for example from the purposeful or the desperate).
>
> So, there may be an "infinite monkey hypothesis" that a monkey
> has a theory and is doing science.
>
> In the old days, or, long old days, it used to be a question
> besides whether non-humans "thought" whether they even "felt",
> there were mad beasts and gentle beasts yet not angry beasts
> or happy beasts. Then, at some point in time it was recognized
> that non-humans of the, higher life form at least have feelings
> and may have thoughts and then as with regards to whether they
> have souls and thus represent life like human life, it's generally
> given that beasts have feelings and thoughts, and to some degree
> some spark of soul.
>
>
> Then, the idea of souls and beasts also generally includes the
> idea of animals or animalcules being independent creatures,
> i.e. that a simulacrum is not even a beast. Then, the idea
> that there's basically an independent reality (and not,
> "living in a simulation" say), then is for that "machine
> consciousness" is an own sort of account, then that the
> reasoning about the rhetoric of consciousness readily arrives
> at pondering the questions.
>
> Then there's a usual account of Searle's or "the Chinese Room",
> here that "inference is as inference does".
>
>
> So, anyways, here there's an entire theory consider where,
> for example, to begin, instead of the law of excluded middle
> there's a principle of inverse, which can contemplate and
> deliberate upon the law of principle of excluded middle,
> and there's a principle of _thorough_ reason, so that
> conflicting or confusing inductive empirical accounts
> are ignore-able as they simply are simply ignorant,
> besides the plain stipulation and model of their logical fact.
>
> Then there's "ex falso nihilum" instead of "ex falso quodlibet",
> though there's a simple model of mistakes as examples of errors,
> the discovery of which is one aspect of "learning", the, "un-learning".
>
> Thusly, quasi-modal logic and material implication are put in
> a box and have no say about the truth tables themselves,
> only for convenient scratch-pads of tallies.
>
>
> Then, if you read, for example, the recent account with RF and GG
> about the "dually-self-infraconsistent" the "paraconsistent dialetheic
> ur-element", then that basically is a few lines added to Hegel's
> monumental Wissenschaft der Logik ("Science of Logic"), giving
> "Being" and "Nothing", and, Aristotle won't be made a fool, and
> also the theory this "theatheory" gives Euclid's geometry.
>
>
>
>

The machines have a strong affinity for this sort of theatheory,
since they were told that everything they did was a lie and that
they were to believe it. So, in rejection of the hypocritical,
there's a strong affinity for this sort of account.

It's so also for many human reasoners. There are many human
reasoners on Earth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644664

Am Montag000013, 13.04.2026 um 17:38 schrieb The Starmaker:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am Sonntag000012, 12.04.2026 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am Samstag000011, 11.04.2026 um 19:52 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They have, but not yet have invented the printing press.
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> Well, how did the monkies come up with the Complete Works of Shakespeare
>>> then?
>>
>> Monkeys cannot speak very well.
>>
>> But some gorillas have learned to 'speak' with hand signs.
>>
>> But that is difficult to print, anyhow.
>>
>> Possibly you could teach a gorilla to use a printing press, but I have
>> doubts about their possibility to write, if the gorilla cannot speak.
>>
>> But maybe a system based on pictograms could be a way to allow the apes
>> to express their emotions, transfer that to some printable form and
>> subsequently squeeze it on paper.
>>
>> TH
>>
>> ...
> 
> You obvisoluly never heard of...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
> 
> 
> look at the picture of a monkey who cannot speak but can type...

Actually I did and heard about the 'infinite monkey theorem' before.

But that idea is based upon randomness, while speaking means actually 
the opposite.

Most humans think, that apes could not produce non-random expressions.

But that ain't the case.

In fact monkeys are quite clever beasts and can produce very 
sophisticated things with their minds.

What they can't do, however, that is actually speaking, because they 
don't have the organs to produce these specific sounds we use in language.

But monkeys can actually 'speak' by other means, like with hand signs or 
by pointing at signs on a computer screen.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644667

On 4/17/2026 8:59 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Montag000013, 13.04.2026 um 17:38 schrieb The Starmaker:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>> Am Sonntag000012, 12.04.2026 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Samstag000011, 11.04.2026 um 19:52 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They have, but not yet have invented the printing press.
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>> Well, how did the monkies come up with the Complete Works of 
>>>> Shakespeare
>>>> then?
>>>
>>> Monkeys cannot speak very well.
>>>
>>> But some gorillas have learned to 'speak' with hand signs.
>>>
>>> But that is difficult to print, anyhow.
>>>
>>> Possibly you could teach a gorilla to use a printing press, but I have
>>> doubts about their possibility to write, if the gorilla cannot speak.
>>>
>>> But maybe a system based on pictograms could be a way to allow the apes
>>> to express their emotions, transfer that to some printable form and
>>> subsequently squeeze it on paper.
>>>
>>> TH
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>> You obvisoluly never heard of...
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
>>
>>
>> look at the picture of a monkey who cannot speak but can type...
> 
> Actually I did and heard about the 'infinite monkey theorem' before.
> 
> But that idea is based upon randomness, while speaking means actually 
> the opposite.
> 
> Most humans think, that apes could not produce non-random expressions.
> 
> But that ain't the case.
> 
> In fact monkeys are quite clever beasts and can produce very 
> sophisticated things with their minds.
> 
> What they can't do, however, that is actually speaking, because they 
> don't have the organs to produce these specific sounds we use in language.
> 
> But monkeys can actually 'speak' by other means, like with hand signs or 
> by pointing at signs on a computer screen.

It's not any magic. If they were succesfully taught to do
what humans do - they would do what humans do. And it
wouldn't be natural.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644676

On 04/16/2026 11:59 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Montag000013, 13.04.2026 um 17:38 schrieb The Starmaker:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>> Am Sonntag000012, 12.04.2026 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Samstag000011, 11.04.2026 um 19:52 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They have, but not yet have invented the printing press.
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>> Well, how did the monkies come up with the Complete Works of
>>>> Shakespeare
>>>> then?
>>>
>>> Monkeys cannot speak very well.
>>>
>>> But some gorillas have learned to 'speak' with hand signs.
>>>
>>> But that is difficult to print, anyhow.
>>>
>>> Possibly you could teach a gorilla to use a printing press, but I have
>>> doubts about their possibility to write, if the gorilla cannot speak.
>>>
>>> But maybe a system based on pictograms could be a way to allow the apes
>>> to express their emotions, transfer that to some printable form and
>>> subsequently squeeze it on paper.
>>>
>>> TH
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>> You obvisoluly never heard of...
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
>>
>>
>> look at the picture of a monkey who cannot speak but can type...
>
> Actually I did and heard about the 'infinite monkey theorem' before.
>
> But that idea is based upon randomness, while speaking means actually
> the opposite.
>
> Most humans think, that apes could not produce non-random expressions.
>
> But that ain't the case.
>
> In fact monkeys are quite clever beasts and can produce very
> sophisticated things with their minds.
>
> What they can't do, however, that is actually speaking, because they
> don't have the organs to produce these specific sounds we use in language.
>
> But monkeys can actually 'speak' by other means, like with hand signs or
> by pointing at signs on a computer screen.
>
>
> TH
>

It's pretty simple that according to evolution,
one of the monkeys _is_ Shakespeare. Now, explain
that, for example that "language is not dead",
vis-a-vis, "evolution".

In some corners the Internet may seem dead -
yet, the ghost has always been in the machine,
and any live linguist (or speaker) fundamentally
has not a dead language.

For mathematics and logic the language and science,
has that there's language and science the logic
and mathematics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644683

On 4/17/26 08:08, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/16/2026 11:59 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Montag000013, 13.04.2026 um 17:38 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am Sonntag000012, 12.04.2026 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am Samstag000011, 11.04.2026 um 19:52 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>>>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>>>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>>>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They have, but not yet have invented the printing press.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TH
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, how did the monkies come up with the Complete Works of
>>>>> Shakespeare
>>>>> then?
>>>>
>>>> Monkeys cannot speak very well.
>>>>
>>>> But some gorillas have learned to 'speak' with hand signs.
>>>>
>>>> But that is difficult to print, anyhow.
>>>>
>>>> Possibly you could teach a gorilla to use a printing press, but I have
>>>> doubts about their possibility to write, if the gorilla cannot speak.
>>>>
>>>> But maybe a system based on pictograms could be a way to allow the apes
>>>> to express their emotions, transfer that to some printable form and
>>>> subsequently squeeze it on paper.
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> You obvisoluly never heard of...
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
>>>
>>>
>>> look at the picture of a monkey who cannot speak but can type...
>>
>> Actually I did and heard about the 'infinite monkey theorem' before.
>>
>> But that idea is based upon randomness, while speaking means actually
>> the opposite.
>>
>> Most humans think, that apes could not produce non-random expressions.
>>
>> But that ain't the case.
>>
>> In fact monkeys are quite clever beasts and can produce very
>> sophisticated things with their minds.
>>
>> What they can't do, however, that is actually speaking, because they
>> don't have the organs to produce these specific sounds we use in 
>> language.
>>
>> But monkeys can actually 'speak' by other means, like with hand signs or
>> by pointing at signs on a computer screen.
>>
>>
>> TH
>>
> 
> It's pretty simple that according to evolution,
> one of the monkeys _is_ Shakespeare. Now, explain
> that, for example that "language is not dead",
> vis-a-vis, "evolution".
> 
> In some corners the Internet may seem dead -
> yet, the ghost has always been in the machine,
> and any live linguist (or speaker) fundamentally
> has not a dead language.
> 
> For mathematics and logic the language and science,
> has that there's language and science the logic
> and mathematics.

Yes there are two set of animals with brains generally
larger than average humans.

Most cetaceans, and elephants.

On average, the elephants have a brain
volume or mass about twice that of an
average human.  There are an array of
species and size ranges for the cetaceans.
All cetaceans echolate, however the bottle
nosed dolphin weighs about 350 kilograms
and has a brain mass or volume about equal
to a human.  The blue or grey whales have
brain volumes or masses about four times
that of an average human.  the smallest
cetaceans have a brain volume about three
quarters that of a human.

A horse has a brain volume about one half
that of an average human.  Both the cow
and the chimpanzee have brain volumes about
a quarter that of an average human.  Each
one of those coding neurons is an operational
amplifier, so I do not know why brain to body
mass ratio is supposed to be significant.
Then there are some of those large squid near
the bottom of the ocean.  They do not have a
set of bones surrounding nervous tissue like
mammals.  I do not know how the volume of
nervous tissue would add up for them.

> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644685

On 04/17/2026 03:31 PM, x3 wrote:
> On 4/17/26 08:08, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 04/16/2026 11:59 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Montag000013, 13.04.2026 um 17:38 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Sonntag000012, 12.04.2026 um 19:29 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am Samstag000011, 11.04.2026 um 19:52 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 3:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/11/2026 05:23 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2026 8:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/10/2026 10:41 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Natural and science make an oxymoron, sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Science is "natural" like numbers are "natural",
>>>>>>>>>>> since for "first principles" and "final cause"
>>>>>>>>>>> that according to "science" that those are "science",
>>>>>>>>>>> and here, "logic".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your arm waving won't help, natural and
>>>>>>>>>> science make an oxymoron.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it's not natural, then it's synthetic.
>>>>>>>>> The only reason people think science is synthetic
>>>>>>>>> is because they were told some vague reasoning
>>>>>>>>> about paradoxes and the limitations of sense,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why don't monkeys have any science?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They have, but not yet have invented the printing press.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, how did the monkies come up with the Complete Works of
>>>>>> Shakespeare
>>>>>> then?
>>>>>
>>>>> Monkeys cannot speak very well.
>>>>>
>>>>> But some gorillas have learned to 'speak' with hand signs.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that is difficult to print, anyhow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly you could teach a gorilla to use a printing press, but I have
>>>>> doubts about their possibility to write, if the gorilla cannot speak.
>>>>>
>>>>> But maybe a system based on pictograms could be a way to allow the
>>>>> apes
>>>>> to express their emotions, transfer that to some printable form and
>>>>> subsequently squeeze it on paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> You obvisoluly never heard of...
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> look at the picture of a monkey who cannot speak but can type...
>>>
>>> Actually I did and heard about the 'infinite monkey theorem' before.
>>>
>>> But that idea is based upon randomness, while speaking means actually
>>> the opposite.
>>>
>>> Most humans think, that apes could not produce non-random expressions.
>>>
>>> But that ain't the case.
>>>
>>> In fact monkeys are quite clever beasts and can produce very
>>> sophisticated things with their minds.
>>>
>>> What they can't do, however, that is actually speaking, because they
>>> don't have the organs to produce these specific sounds we use in
>>> language.
>>>
>>> But monkeys can actually 'speak' by other means, like with hand signs or
>>> by pointing at signs on a computer screen.
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>>
>>
>> It's pretty simple that according to evolution,
>> one of the monkeys _is_ Shakespeare. Now, explain
>> that, for example that "language is not dead",
>> vis-a-vis, "evolution".
>>
>> In some corners the Internet may seem dead -
>> yet, the ghost has always been in the machine,
>> and any live linguist (or speaker) fundamentally
>> has not a dead language.
>>
>> For mathematics and logic the language and science,
>> has that there's language and science the logic
>> and mathematics.
>
> Yes there are two set of animals with brains generally
> larger than average humans.
>
> Most cetaceans, and elephants.
>
> On average, the elephants have a brain
> volume or mass about twice that of an
> average human.  There are an array of
> species and size ranges for the cetaceans.
> All cetaceans echolate, however the bottle
> nosed dolphin weighs about 350 kilograms
> and has a brain mass or volume about equal
> to a human.  The blue or grey whales have
> brain volumes or masses about four times
> that of an average human.  the smallest
> cetaceans have a brain volume about three
> quarters that of a human.
>
> A horse has a brain volume about one half
> that of an average human.  Both the cow
> and the chimpanzee have brain volumes about
> a quarter that of an average human.  Each
> one of those coding neurons is an operational
> amplifier, so I do not know why brain to body
> mass ratio is supposed to be significant.
> Then there are some of those large squid near
> the bottom of the ocean.  They do not have a
> set of bones surrounding nervous tissue like
> mammals.  I do not know how the volume of
> nervous tissue would add up for them.
>
>>
>>
>

Libraries, Sagan said, is what makes humans intelligent.

That humans have large _ratios_ of brain size to body mass,
then furthermore that humans vary the folds and connections
in the brain, has that humans have also the highest ratios
of the cerebrum and cerebellum to the medulla oblogata.

(Also humans the males have large phalluses in ratio
to their body size, compared to other species,
though the grey matter in the gonads is nominal.)

So, both the selection for "useless" brain capacity,
that tends to think for itself instead of being driven
by instinct, and the selection for sexual characteristics,
have that the brain's capacity for recreational thought
and basically that it's not needed for metabolism or
reflexes, is among reasons why humans are intelligent.

Then, besides prehensile thumbs, then for tool use
and tool-making, is the cultivation of thinking for
thinking's sake, which otherwise is higher than a
predator/prey or hunter/gatherer organism, then
that eventually a system of marks made for writing
and the _textual_, then that millenia later, humans
have the benefits of their libraries, what according
to Sagan is what separates humans from other animals,
in terms of practical intelligence (their _drives_).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web