[deltasixeight]

>This is factually false. Probability is embeddable into predicate logic, but predicate logic is not embeddable into (Bayesian) probability. This is actually an open problem (how to define a probability theory that is equivalent to predicate logic).

Completely wrong. How can someone say I'm factually false when your own statement is completely and utterly incorrect. I don't think you're really aware of what's going on here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_logic

It's not an "open problem" or aka "unsolved problem" in the sense you implied. Far from it. Rather it is just not a popular field of study.

>This definitely a very opinionated view on what is logic. There is no reason to embed anything in universe/anything else. If you remove expressability, I’m not sure what properties remain.

I don't think you get it. The nature of an axiom IS by definition an opinion. An axiom is an Assumption. Assumptions are just things that are assumed to be true, they are NOT things that are proven to be true. Thus the only thing an assumption can be if it is an unproven statement is that it is an OPINION. When anyone makes a statement about logic such as my statement "Logic is a fundamental axiom of the universe." Or "Logic is NOT a fundamental axiom of the universe" is by DEFINITION a statement of OPINION.

When I say it's a fundamental axiom it means that it is something all of humanity consistently assumes to be true. Our culture, our science, our mathematics, our interpretation of reality and the universe as we know it is founded on the assumption that logic is true. It is a general statement about the broad "opinion" of all of humanity.

Look at your own statement. You said and I quote: "There is no reason to embed anything in universe/anything else." What does this statement even mean? What is reason? Reason IS Logic. Look it up. You are literally saying there is no logical reason to embed logic into our universe. Yet here you are making a logical statement in a universe where you say we cannot assume logic is true.

We assume logic is true. You can't make a single argument otherwise. Literally all arguments you've ever made in your life hinge on logic being true. That is unless all your arguments are illogical. Are you saying your own argument is illogical?

There's really nothing left to argue about here. Our entire technical framework of reality is founded on the "Opinion" that logic real.

>On this I do agree, I wouldn’t call logic a “science.”

If you truly understood what's going on, you would agree with me on all points. Not just this.

[ivalm]

Not going to address your weird attempt at wordplay but again just so you know, subjective logic, which you linked, is equivalent to propositional (in a sense you can express any statement in subjective logic via a set of propositions, eg Ap distributions make this connection), and does not embed predicate logic (eg any statement of this system can be expressed in predicate logic, but not vice versa)…

Also, axiom can be just a rule in a rewriting system. Doesn’t have to be an assumption/opinion as it is just a proposition (or higher order predicate) that is true within some system (not necessarily related to anything that exists).

Things can be outside universe yet discussed by people in-universe (subsisting vs existing without multiple worlds).

What I am saying isn’t controversial in analytic philosophy/ epistemology…

Edit: on a more reconciliatory note, a classic essay that I enjoy that touches upon the idea of denotion/subsistence/existence/difficulty with predicates is Bernard Russel’s “On Denoting”. I suspect you may enjoy it: https://www.uvm.edu/~lderosse/courses/lang/Russell(1905).pdf

[deltasixeight]

>Not going to address your weird attempt at wordplay

There's absolutely zero need to be rude. There is no "wierd" word play here just misunderstandings and impoliteness by you.

>Also, axiom can be just a rule in a rewriting system. Doesn’t have to be an assumption/opinion as it is just a proposition (or higher order predicate) that is true within some system (not necessarily related to anything that exists).

This is obvious. You're just restating what I said and coming up with a circular argument. A rewriting system is a universe you create, not dissimilar to our own universe that we live in. An axiom in this system is an statement made by you stating something is true without any proof. A statement made without proof IS an assumption. Now this explanation may seem like word play to you but it is not. The exact identical words "assumption" and "axiom" serve to confuse your reasoning and blind you from the actuality of the concept at hand. What I am doing is unraveling your misunderstanding in attempt to explain your confusion but you are unable to see it and you view the argument as "word play." Axiom and Assumptions are two words that mean the exact same thing. There is one concept at hand and two words for that same concept that are confusing you.

>subjective logic, which you linked, is equivalent to propositional (in a sense you can express any statement in subjective logic via a set of propositions, eg Ap distributions make this connection), and does not embed predicate logic (eg any statement of this system can be expressed in predicate logic, but not vice versa)…

This system has axioms and theorems that use predicate logic. It is built off of predicate logic.

I recommend reading this: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/statistical-science/volum...

When you set the subjectivity to 100% the result is something equivalent to predicate logic. So logic is both a special case of probability as well as foundational building blocks for subjective probability itself. You can arbitrarily pick and choose which came first and which one is axiomatic. Probability or Logic.

You are indeed wrong here. Please politely admit it without calling my statements weird. If you disagree there is no need to resort to derogatory statements.