Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology providing situational context.

On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 4:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 11:00 AM, olcott wrote:

The body of human general knowledge that can be expressed in
language cannot possibly have any unprovable expressions when truth
preserving operations are the only category of inference steps
allowed.

So, your logic doesn't allow us to express the Goldbach conjecture in
it? We can't express the logic of Turing Machines?

The body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language (is
the actual body of general knowledge that can be expressed in
language) thus includes every tiny detail about the Goldbach
conjecture.

Right, but knowing all the details doesn't get us the answer, we KNOW
all the details that define the problem, we just can't test every
number to see if it holds.

Part of the set of all general knowledge that can be expressed using
language is all of the details of unsolved problems. It will know that
no one knows whether the Goldbach conjecture is true.

What it does not have is a set of truth preserving operations from
basic facts to a truth value of TRUE. Is the Goldbach Conjecture known
to be True? No.

But the question is NOT "is it KNOWN to be True?" but "is it True?"

Then the answer is "no one knows".