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

Groups > sci.physics > #892776

Re: Logos 2000: rulial foundations

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> Logos 2000:  rulial foundations
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkqfnoFGj14&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-
> 
> Foundations, nature, entropy, emergence, reality and ideals, inference
> and reason, intelligence and wisdom, de Morgan, causality and
> implication, model theory, Boole,  abstract symbolic logic, forms and
> syllogism, entailment and monotonicity, arithmetization and
> algebraization and geometrization, model theory and proof theory, the
> inner and outer, comprehension, structure and truth, paradox,
> consistency and completeness, theory of theory, the liar paradox,
> Comenius language, the ex falso, contradiction in itself, deduction and
> abduction, monism, natural language and intersubjectivity,
> noumenological and phenomenological senses, consistency and completeness
> and constancy and concreteness, mathematical and physical intepretations
> and models, natural science and super-natural theory, completions and
> limits, analytical bridges, positivism and axiomatization, diversity and
> variety, closed categories and continuous quantities, Aristotle's actual
> infinite, Kant and the sublime, Hegel and Being and Nothing, an integer
> continuum, Euclid's geometry, models of continuous domains, the modular
> and replete, axiomless geometry, perceived paradox, restriction of
> comprehension, fin de siecle foundations, logicist positivism and
> mathematical platonism, science and the empirical, idealism and
> absolutes, mathematical universe hypothesis, space-time, state and
> change, cosmic book-keeping, freedom of imagination and thought,
> absolutes and truth, Derrida and Husserl and Quine, lies and logic, the
> quasi-modal and modal, rules and the rulial, inductive limits and
> infinite limits, Zermel-Fraenkel set theory, elt, set-theoretic
> paradoxes, regularity and regularit(ies), well-foundedness, ZFC,
> well-ordering, univalency the illative and well-dispersion, class/set
> distinction, descriptive set theory, expansion and restriction of
> comprehension, Goedel and incompleteness, uncountability, Russell's
> reto-thesis, Mirimanoff and Skolem, Frege and Russell, Peirce, du
> Bois-Reymond and Cantor, Russell's paradox applied to finite numbers,
> Russell in logic, apologetics in logical, Occam and Plotinus and Philo,
> Russell and Whitehead, descriptive set theory and model theory, Tarski,
> 20'th century modern classical logic, three regularities, alternation
> and carriage, newer modern logic, Peano, Goedelian incompleteness
> applied to itself, Cohen and the independency of the Continuum
> Hypothesis, forcing's axiom, induction as blind and invincibly ignorant,
> contradiction not in itself, DesCartes and Quine, Principia Mathematica,
> Chwistek, anti-foundational set theories, set theories with universes,
> Burali-Forti and the gesammelt, Myhill paradox, Russell on candidate
> axioms, composability and separability, Sheffer and Gentzen, the
> Begriffsschrift and concept-scripts, Russell and classes and relations,
> Russell and "significance" and "isolation", Suppes, principles of
> mathematics, Shoenfield, Moschavakis and Jech, ruliality and perfection,
> modern mathematics.

Okay, I figured it out...

Ross Finlayson doesn't speak English. There is only one period in this whole paragragraph.
That's not proper English. (meaning the science is not proper either)

There is something called Webster's Dictionary.

The purpose of Webster's Dictionary is for American to use...English words.

In other words, Webster came out with his dictionary to remove...Brithish English werds.


Ross Finlayson paragraph (if you can call it a paragraph) is...incoherent!


It is unclear, unreadable and undefinable and intentionally made to confuse a chimpanese.


There are hobo's on skidrow that talk like this....

dat is where people like Ross Finlayson end up.


Learn English,  Verstehen? You do have an "aggressive mentality"...







"aggressive mentality" means

An aggressive mentality is a mindset characterized by a strong drive to
dominate, pursue goals assertively, and potentially disregard others'
rights or needs in the process. It can manifest in various ways, from a
competitive and ambitious drive to a more confrontational and
potentially harmful approach to interactions.


Einstein said:  "The aggressive mentality of the German
people is deep-rooted;"

Albert Einstein also said:
"It is possible either to destroy the German people or keep them
suppressed; it is not possible to educate them to think and act along
democratic lines in the foreseeable future."



I eat "aggressive mentality" for breakfast.


We Americans are going to have to go back to Germany and teach those Germans a thing ot two.



Why did the German bring a ladder to the bar?


because he heard the drinks were on the house.



Knok Knock
Who's there?
Gestapo
Gestapo who?
Ve Vill ask ze Questions!



Have you heard about the new German microwave?
It's got ten seats inside.











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

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Logos 2000: rulial foundations The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-05-17 12:13 -0700

csiph-web