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

On 7/6/2026 5:53 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2026-07-06 16:41, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> So why did you attribute it to me?
> 

I did not attribute it to you.
I asked you to explain how it is wrong
to prove that do not understand these things.

>> 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.
> 
> Please point to a single piece of experimental evidence which supports 
> this.
> 

There is no experimental evidence to prove that
the square root of two is a number.

> Also, concepts aren't types, so they can't be organized as a type 
> hierarchy. A computer database might organize them as a hierarchy, but 
> not as a type hierarchy, and this hierarchy wouldn't reflect anything 
> about how actual people organize concepts.
> 
> André
> 


-- 
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).