Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic knowledge

On 3/22/25 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 11:04 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 10:13:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/22/2025 5:11 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 21 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/21/2025 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/21/25 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/21/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/21/25 8:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/21/2025 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/21/25 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/21/2025 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-20 14:57:16 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/20/2025 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/19/25 10:42 PM, olcott wrote:

>

Because my system begins with basic facts and actual facts can't
contradict each other and no contradiction can be formed by
applying only truth preserving operations to these basic facts
there are no contradictions in the system.

>

The liar sentence is contradictory.

^
>

It is self evidence that for every element of the set of human
knowledge that can be expressed using language that undecidability
cannot possibly exist.

>

Not self-evident was Gödel's disproof of that.

^
>

When the body of human general knowledge has all of its semantics
encoded syntactically AKA Montague Grammar of Semantics then a proof
means validation of truth.

Yes, proof is a validatation of truth, but truth does not need to be
able to be validated.

True(X) ONLY validates that X is true and does nothing else.

Not if X is unknown (but still true).

You must pay complete attention to ALL of my words or you get the
meaning that I specify incorrectly.

 

Try explaining differently, then. What does your supposed truth predicate
say about unknown truths?
>

 The body of human general knowledge that can be expressed
using language contains zero unknown truths.

But from them, we can express unknown truths.

 When we expect a True(X) predicate to be the actual omniscient
mind-of-God our expectations are out of whack.

Why? That was the question, can we make a predicate that always gives us the right answer, the answer to that is allowed to be no.
Your problem is you think logic should be limited by us, and not to allow it to surpass us and let us grow.

 Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

And Stupidity shots at targets that are not there.