Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies

On 4/17/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/17/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/17/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/17/2024 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/17/24 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/17/2024 3:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/17/2024 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>
*I will paraphrase his quote using the simplest terms*
>
Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
there is something wrong with a formal system that cannot correctly
determine whether X is true or false.
>
>

>
I like to read it more as Mirimanoff and the extra-ordinary.
>
In the early 20'th century, Mirimanoff was very influential in
what became set theory.  He was very well-known in the small circle
that is the usual introduction, and should be more, today.
>
Regularity, a usual ruliality, as Well-Foundedness, has a
delicate interplay and contraposition with Well-Orderedness,
both regular and rulial, yet in the infinite, that the
antinomies sort of make for that for arithmetic, that
both increment is an operator, and division is an operator,
and while they join as they come together in the field,
in the modular, they represent yet opposite concerns.
>
So, Mirimanoff's extra-ordinary, is another way to look
at Goedel's incompleteness, that the truths about the
objects, i.e. their proofs or models, do have an
extra-ordinary existence, arising from the resolution
of what would otherwise be the contradiction, the paradox,
making for why Goedel's result is as well that there
_is_ an extra-ordinary infinity, plainly courtesy the mind,
and simple ponderance of alternatives in quantifiers
and the basis of fundamental logic.
>
So, it's not "wrong", instead, it's "better".
>
I like to think of it this way as I am entirely pleased
about it and it very well follows from what I've studied
of the development of the canon of logic as it was and is,
and, will be.
>
>
Warm regards, E.S., bonjour,
>
>

>
I am interested in foundations of logic only so that that I can derive
the generic notion of correct reasoning for the purpose of practical
application in daily life.
>
For example the claim that election fraud changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election could be understood as untrue as if it was
an error in arithmetic.

>
No, the Truth or Falsehood of that statement would be based on looking at the ACTUAL OBSERVATION of how much "fraud" could be shown to exist, that isn't something determined by "analytical logic" but by forensic investigation, by OBSERVATION. (just the opposite of what you try to claim).
>

>
Although that is correct the problem is that 45% of the electorate
do not understand that is correct.

>
And thus, your arguement does nothing to fix the actual problem.
>

>
When we have a formal system that can explain how and why that is
correct in a quadrillion different ways at every language and
education level, responding to every social media post in real time
relentlessly then we will have the resources required.

>
Except that the key isn't what a formal system can show, as the key is the basic evidence, that would need to be the axioms of the formal system.
>

 The "axioms" of the formal system would be an an accurate model of the
current actual world. Such a system would hypothetically be aware of
every single detail of evidence that there was woefully insufficient
evidence of election fraud that could have possibly changed the
outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

And since the core of the disagreement is with the MODEL, the logic afterwords doesn't matter.
Just like YOU refuse to look at the fact presented to you, because you "know" what the truth is, so do the election deniers "know" what the facts are to the case.
Why would people beleive your system when they "KNOW" that it has the wrong facts.
YOU prove this behavior by your own.

 It would know an fully understand every single word that was
publicly stated about election fraud this includes every single
word that anyone ever said in of the election fraud curt cases.

But, if people don't beleive it, they will not believe it.
Claiming something is true doesn't make it so.

 It would be able to very easily reverse-engineer every subtle
nuance of a detail of exactly how Hitler's "big lie" model
was applied.

You put too much faith in your ability to derive logic, and not enough understanding in psychology. Your become the proof that your system can not work, as YOU insist on things that have been conclusively proven wrong, but you continue to believe them.

 

>
Currently most of the experts seems to agree that True(L, x)
cannot possibly be consistently and coherently defined thus
there is no objectively discernible difference between verified
facts and dangerous lies.

>
>
Nope. That is just a stupid lie.
>

 Notice the keyword "consistently" that means 100% of ALL
the time in every single case.

Which is IMPOSSIBLE.
The case that it can not handle has been shown to you, but you just refuese to look at it, because you can not look at it and keep your broken world view, so you think it must be wrong.
Fundamentally, you just don't understand the things you are talking about.

 

True(L, x) as a predicate of logic can not be defined.
>
That does NOT say we can not objectived define what is true and what is false, it says that there exist a few (and generally unusual) statements that we csn not determine if they meet the definition of True or False.
>

 Thus not "consistently" 100% of ALL the time in every single case, just
like I said. I have a friend with an actual 143 IQ that is completely
certain that the Earth is flat.

Right, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the truth for ALL cases.

 Too many people do not understand the difference between reasonably plausible and unreasonably implausible.

Like you.

 

The PROPERTY of Truth has a firm definition, what can't be defined is the PREDICATE.
>

 It it cannot be formalized then what the Hell can a firm definition
possibly be? We need a definition such that every liar will know that
their lies are as easily detectable as arithmetic errors with absolutely
zero subjective judgement involved.

Which just shows you don't understand the difference between defining what we mean by something being true, which we can do, and defining a PREDICATE that tells us, always, if a statement is true.
NO ONE (except it seems you) seems to claim that it is impossible to tell, for most statements, if they are true or not. If we can show the logical steps connecting the statement to truthmakers, then it is true, if we can show teh logical steps connecting the complement of the statement to truthmakers, it is false. If we can't do either, we do not know if the statement is true or false, and there will always be such statements.

 If we don't have that then the goofies will always claim political bias.

Just like you.

 If we make it like I claim that 2 + 3 = 5 and they claim "political
bias" they know that other goofies won't even accept that.

Right, LIARS will use invalid and unsound reasoning to try to show falsehoods to be plausable, just like YOU do.

 

Your stupidity that can't understand the difference just illustrates the problem.
>
You yourelf beleive your own lies and refuse to look at the actual truth, just like the people you complain about.
>

 Try and show the details of exactly how
"The PROPERTY of Truth has a firm definition"

A statement is Analytically True, if there exists a valid and sound (possibly infinite) chain of reasoning from the Truth Makers of the system to the statement. We can determine this, at times, with a formal proof listing a finite chain of valid and sound logic from the Truth Makers of the system to the statement.
A statement is Empirically True if it matches the existance in the world. This can often be demonstrated by observation of the world.

 Such that we can convince 95% of the 45% of the electorate that
believe that election fraud changed the outcome of the 2020
presidential election.

People who refuse to look at facts, can't actually be persuaded.
YOU prove this statement by your ignorant claims about logic.

 The current definition is good enough for geniuses that want the
truth yet woefully inadequate to nullify Nazi styled propaganda.

Because logical definitions don't mean anything to people who do not use logic. Something that seems beyond your ability to understand.

 Making True(L,x) computable could do this. Nothing less than this
could be nearly as effective.

Nope. Not at all.
Your claiming it would just reinforces the falsehoods that they hold onto.

 

YOU prove the difficulty of the problem, by being the poster child of it.
>

>
>

>
Only because humans have a very terribly abysmal understanding of
the notion of truth is propaganda based on the Nazi model possible.

>
No, it is based on people beleiving propaganda over facts.
>

>
The Tarski Undefinability theorem seems to support Nazi propaganda
in that it seems to cause all of the world's best experts to uniformly
agree that no one can ever possibly accurately specify exactly what
True(L,x) really is.

>
>
Nope, but YOUR claim would be more of a support for that then his.
>
>

>
If we cannot ever accurately know what truth is then we can never
consistently correctly divide truth from dangerous lies. This is
currently having horrific consequences.

>
But that isn't what Tarsli said, but your claim is exactly what the people you try to decry use.
>
Your logic is based on LYING, so it actually PROMOTES the lies that you claim to be fighting.
>
YOUR ignoring of the actual facts presented to you validates the ignoring of the facts by those that you claim to be fighting.
>
>

>

-- https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
>

>

>

>

>