Lester Zick wrote: > Well this point is well taken: the tautological exhaustion of truth is > an assumption. However the point I would make in this connection is > whether there can be any alternative. In other words can there be an > alternative to the tautological exhaustion of truth that is actually > "not a tautology"? If so it would seem we nonetheless have the > resulting tautology "tautology, not tautology" in order to deny the > tautology which as far as I can tell denies the possibility of any > alternatives to the tautology whether or not the exhaustion of truth > in tautologies is an assumption. In other words whether or not the > exhaustion of truth in tautologies is an assumption, there can be no > mechanical alternative to tautologies.
So the way we figure out the absolute truth of "the tautological exhaustion of truth," the test appears to be "as far as [Lester Zick] can tell." You will go far in logic. Further I still don't understand (and I somewhat doubt Lester does) what "mechanical alternative" is. I'm starting to think "mechanically transforms" means "Lester Zick does a calculation." And "there are no mechanical alternatives" means "Lester Zick does not see any alternatives."
Further the whole argument with absolute falsity seems to be a confusion of "statement A is always not false" and "statement A is not always false" which are not quite the same thing.