On 23 Jul 2006 11:23:17 -0700, "Jiri Lebl" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>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.
Well obviously further than you.
> Further I still don't understand >(and I somewhat doubt Lester does) what "mechanical alternative" is.
Only because you work in faith based math instead of mechanics.
>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."
Whereas Lester Zick sees plenty of alternatives to faith based math.
>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.