🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 16, 4:10 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 3:29 pm, "R. Srinivasan" <sradh...@in.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > NAFL is a new
> > logic and provides, among other stuff, a new philosophy of truth. To
> > pretend that NAFL does not exist, as philosphers have been doing for 6
> > years now, is shameful dishonesty. I have no other words to express
> > myself here.
>
> No one pretends it doesn't exist. It's just that not a very many
> people care about it; which is reasonable since you won't provide the
> basic definitions that would make it understandable to other people.
> One might as well throw a bunch of electrical wires into a cardboard
> box and say, "Here, a new kind of computer! A revolution in
> information technology!".
>
>
The basic philosophical ideas behind NAFL can be understood without
delving into details. You can treat a NAFL theory like a black box and
understand the NAFL truth definition and the requirements imposed on
NAFL theories by this truth definition. You can also understand the
philosophical differences between NAFL and classical/intuitionistic
logics as far as the fundamental laws of logic are concerned (law of
excluded middle, non-contradiciton), and some other essential
differences like how A-->B is treated in NAFL.,without actually being
able to construct a NAFL theory.

The key point is that the NAFL truth definition embodied by its Main
postulate actually influences the way NAFL theories are constructed.
That truth for formal propostions consists of axiomatic declarations
in the human mind is a sacred and inviolable requirement imposed on
NAFL theories. This is a striking difference between NAFL and
classical/intuitionisitic logics (which treat "truth" as something
completely independent of axiomatic theories).

You have to understand all this before plunging into the construction
of NAFL theories. If you expect the kind of definition that exists for
classical theories, you will not get that because a NAFL theory cannot
be defined as a mathematical object. You can only make the definition
precise enough to be able to work within NAFL theories. There are
solid reasons for this requirement. One of these is that Godel's
incompleteness theorems cannot go through in NAFL, and that is a
fundamental requirement imposed on a NAFL theory by its truth
definition (the NAFL version of PA has to be complete in order to be
consistent and consistency/completeness are metatheoretical notions in
NAFL).

Unfortunately I am unable to find time to post continuously enough to
start a new thread on this subject. I have been flooded with routine
work on software projects. Pathetic that nobody in IBM Research is
even willing to discuss NAFL with me. I was hoping for a long time to
find some support from there so that I can find time to continue my
work on NAFL. But now I know what the score is.

Somehow I have to make enough time to write a couple of papers this
year, and I will get around to further postings at that time.

Regards, RS