Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G h as no meaning in PA

On 7/6/2026 5:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2026-07-06 16:00, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/6/2026 4:13 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>
>>> It is impossible to leap from {nothingness} to
>>> 1987 Chevy Camaro with no steps inbetweem.
>>
>>> {Thing}--->{Physically Existing Thing}
>>>    ... {Motor Vehicle}---> {Automobile} ...
> I did not write any of the above. Please don't claim that I did.
> 
>> Try to explain how the notion of 1987 Chevy Camaro
>> pops into existence from out-of-nowhere with no
>> prerequisite order.
>>
> 

I know that I wrote it. You must show exactly how
I am incorrect otherwise your fake rebuttal is
simply hiding behind profound ignorance.

 > If you want to know how concepts are actually organized, you need to 
 > look at experimental evidence from psychology, psycholinguistics,
> aphasiology, etc. They aren't organized into a tree where concepts have 
> parents. Armchair philosophizing (aka mental masturbation) isn't going 
> to get you anywhere.
> 
> André
> 

They are organized as a type hierarchy.
You either understand this or fail to comprehend.

-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).