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

On 3/23/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-22 15:19:26 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/22/2025 9:18 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-21 13:52:38 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/21/2025 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-21 03:49:14 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/20/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/20/25 6:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/19/2025 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/19/25 5:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/18/2025 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/18/25 9:36 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/18/2025 8:14 AM, Mikko wrote:

Part of the problem is that most of what we call "Human
Knowledge" isn't logically defined truth, but is just
"Emperical Knowledge", for which we

The set of human knowledge that can be expressed in language
provides the means to compute True(X).

Of course not, as then True(x) just can't handle a statement
whose truth is currently unknown, which it MUST be able to
handle

It employs the same algorithm as Prolog:
Can X be proven on the basis of Facts?

And thus you just admitted that your system doesn't even QUALIFY
to be the system that Tarski is talking about.
You don't seem to understand that fact, because apparently you
can't actually understand any logic system more coplicated than
what Prolog can handle.

This concise specification is air-tight.
The set of all human general knowledge that can be expressed using
language has no undecidability or undefinability.

Of course it has. Meanings of the words "undecidability" and
"undefinability" and related words are a part of human knowledge,
and so are Gödel's completeness and incopleteness theorems as well
as Tarski's undefinability theorem.

My system has no undecidability or undefinability itself yet can
explain these issues with inferior systems.

That is not proven. Nor is proven that your system is consistent.
Nor that your system exists.

The definition of the set of every element of human general knowledge
that can be expressed using language prevents inconsistency,
incompleteness and undecidability within this set.

It prevents completeness.

The set of human general knowledge that can be expressed using language
is ALWAYS complete by definition.

There are expressions that could be elements of human general knowledge
but aren't.
But human general knowledge is not a theory because there is no way to
know about every expressible claim whether its known to be true.

We can imagine a single formal system that contains every element of the
set of human knowledge that can be expressed in language.