Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:

1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."

2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.

3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.

On 6/14/2021 8:20 PM, DV wrote:
>
> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
>
> 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
>
> 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
>

Zazen meditation helps restore a balancing calm.

> 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
>

This makes sense to me.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 02:20:32 UTC+1, DV wrote:
> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other
> stressful issue can try to get by:
>
It depends what sort of mental illness you have. Every case presents a bit differently and we don't
really know whether patients with similar symptoms are all suffering from the same underlying
condition, or from different conditions which produce similar effects.

But often "talking cures" don't work very well. However most patients do respond to drugs.

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 4:35:10 AM UTC-4, malcolm.ar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 02:20:32 UTC+1, DV wrote:
> > Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other
> > stressful issue can try to get by:
> >
> It depends what sort of mental illness you have. Every case presents a bit differently and we don't
> really know whether patients with similar symptoms are all suffering from the same underlying
> condition, or from different conditions which produce similar effects.
>
> But often "talking cures" don't work very well. However most patients do respond to drugs.

Yes, I agree. Of course I don't mean to suggest that people with mental health issues should listen to my advice without talking to a doctor.

On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
>
> 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
>
> 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E..g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
>
> 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.

Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
----
On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
....
People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
....
----
In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> > Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
> >
> > 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
> >
> > 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
> >
> > 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
> Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
> ----
> On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
> ...
> People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
> ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
> ...
> ----
> In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.

I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.

I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?

On Friday, 18 June 2021 at 00:08:39 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> > > Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
> > >
> > > 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
> > >
> > > 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
> > >
> > > 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
> > Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
> > ----
> > On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
> > ...
> > People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
> > ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
> > ...
> > ----
> > In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
> I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
>
> I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?

Yes, that is a funny fact that "everyone has the right to be wrong".
But I think this should be considered in "learning stage". But then, who is not
in learning stage? ...
Anyone's action/thought are biologically-hard-wired correct, even inconsistent.
I think in the final, Nature decides.

On 6/17/2021 11:08 AM, DV wrote:
> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
>>> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
>>>
>>> 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
>>>
>>> 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
>>>
>>> 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
>> Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
>> ----
>> On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
>> ...
>> People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
>> ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
>> ...
>> ----
>> In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
>
> I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
>
> I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
>

Tarski "proved" that {truth} cannot be precisely defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem

He and Gödel and Turing all used a variation of the liar paradox to
"prove" their point. In other words their "proofs" are based on semantic
incoherence and are therefore invalid.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 12:49:01 PM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> On Friday, 18 June 2021 at 00:08:39 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> > > > Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
> > > >
> > > > 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
> > > >
> > > > 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
> > > >
> > > > 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
> > > Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
> > > ----
> > > On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > ...
> > > People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
> > > ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
> > > ...
> > > ----
> > > In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
> > I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
> >
> > I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
> Yes, that is a funny fact that "everyone has the right to be wrong".
> But I think this should be considered in "learning stage". But then, who is not
> in learning stage? ...
> Anyone's action/thought are biologically-hard-wired correct, even inconsistent.
> I think in the final, Nature decides.

I don't think I agree that Nature as opposed to Nurture plays 100% of the role in a person's life, thoughts, and actions. I could be wrong though.

What do you mean by "learning stage?"

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 6/17/2021 11:08 AM, DV wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> >>> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
> >>>
> >>> 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
> >>>
> >>> 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
> >>>
> >>> 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
> >> Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
> >> ----
> >> On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
> >> ...
> >> People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
> >> ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
> >> ...
> >> ----
> >> In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
> >
> > I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
> >
> > I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
> >
> Tarski "proved" that {truth} cannot be precisely defined.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
>
> He and Gödel and Turing all used a variation of the liar paradox to
> "prove" their point. In other words their "proofs" are based on semantic
> incoherence and are therefore invalid.
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds." Einstein

Tarski's theorem only applies to formal mathematics, not to real-life natural-language-expressed statements with truth values. It hasn't been conclusively shown whether or not natural language and formal math are in a sense equivalent.

I do not endorse your mathematical claims in many cases.

On 6/17/2021 1:23 PM, DV wrote:
> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/17/2021 11:08 AM, DV wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
>>>>> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
>>>> Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
>>>> ----
>>>> On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
>>>> ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
>>>> ...
>>>> ----
>>>> In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
>>>
>>> I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
>>>
>>> I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
>>>
>> Tarski "proved" that {truth} cannot be precisely defined.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
>>
>> He and Gödel and Turing all used a variation of the liar paradox to
>> "prove" their point. In other words their "proofs" are based on semantic
>> incoherence and are therefore invalid.
>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>> minds." Einstein
>
> Tarski's theorem only applies to formal mathematics, not to real-life natural-language-expressed statements with truth values. It hasn't been conclusively shown whether or not natural language and formal math are in a sense equivalent.

Richard Montague sufficiently proved this with his Montague grammar of
natural language semantics.

>
> I do not endorse your mathematical claims in many cases.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:44:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 6/17/2021 1:23 PM, DV wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 6/17/2021 11:08 AM, DV wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> >>>>> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
> >>>> Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
> >>>> ----
> >>>> On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>> People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
> >>>> ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
> >>>> ...
> >>>> ----
> >>>> In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
> >>>
> >>> I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
> >>>
> >> Tarski "proved" that {truth} cannot be precisely defined.
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
> >>
> >> He and Gödel and Turing all used a variation of the liar paradox to
> >> "prove" their point. In other words their "proofs" are based on semantic
> >> incoherence and are therefore invalid.
> >> --
> >> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>
> >> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >> minds." Einstein
> >
> > Tarski's theorem only applies to formal mathematics, not to real-life natural-language-expressed statements with truth values. It hasn't been conclusively shown whether or not natural language and formal math are in a sense equivalent.
> Richard Montague sufficiently proved this with his Montague grammar of
> natural language semantics.
> >
> > I do not endorse your mathematical claims in many cases.
> >
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds." Einstein

I hadn't really heard of Montague grammar before you mentioned it, but it is interesting.

Maybe you are right, but I don't think I agree with the claim that Montague has proved that English and math are equivalent. I argue there is a problem with defining words precisely. In particular, I don't think there has been an efficient algorithm published establishing how to determine the accuracy of an "English language proof." That is, there is no known axiomatization of true English (or other language) sentences.

As you might expect, I would point to the difficulty in formalizing the liar's sentence in English in a way that yields a sensible truth value. In particular, the axioms of "true English sentences" would probably need to be inconsistent, incomplete (i.e., some sentences would not have a truth value, perhaps even some that English speakers would think should have truth values), or not part of a first order formal theory.

On 6/17/2021 1:58 PM, DV wrote:
> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:44:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/17/2021 1:23 PM, DV wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/17/2021 11:08 AM, DV wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
>>>>>>> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
>>>>>> Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>> On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
>>>>>> ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>> In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
>>>>>
>>>> Tarski "proved" that {truth} cannot be precisely defined.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
>>>>
>>>> He and Gödel and Turing all used a variation of the liar paradox to
>>>> "prove" their point. In other words their "proofs" are based on semantic
>>>> incoherence and are therefore invalid.
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>
>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>
>>> Tarski's theorem only applies to formal mathematics, not to real-life natural-language-expressed statements with truth values. It hasn't been conclusively shown whether or not natural language and formal math are in a sense equivalent.
>> Richard Montague sufficiently proved this with his Montague grammar of
>> natural language semantics.
>>>
>>> I do not endorse your mathematical claims in many cases.
>>>
>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>> minds." Einstein
>
> I hadn't really heard of Montague grammar before you mentioned it, but it is interesting.
>
> Maybe you are right, but I don't think I agree with the claim that Montague has proved that English and math are equivalent. I argue there is a problem with defining words precisely. In particular, I don't think there has been an efficient algorithm published establishing how to determine the accuracy of an "English language proof." That is, there is no known axiomatization of true English (or other language) sentences.
>
> As you might expect, I would point to the difficulty in formalizing the liar's sentence in English in a way that yields a sensible truth value.

The liar sentence is simple not a truth bearer in the same sort of way
that the following sentence is not a truth bearer: What time is it?

> In particular, the axioms of "true English sentences" would probably need to be inconsistent, incomplete (i.e., some sentences would not have a truth value, perhaps even some that English speakers would think should have truth values), or not part of a first order formal theory.
>

The ability to precisely define the meaning of words does not prevent
them from forming incoherent sentences:

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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:10:10 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 6/17/2021 1:58 PM, DV wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:44:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 6/17/2021 1:23 PM, DV wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 6/17/2021 11:08 AM, DV wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> >>>>>>> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food.. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
> >>>>>> Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
> >>>>>> ----
> >>>>>> On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
> >>>>>> ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> ----
> >>>>>> In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Tarski "proved" that {truth} cannot be precisely defined.
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
> >>>>
> >>>> He and Gödel and Turing all used a variation of the liar paradox to
> >>>> "prove" their point. In other words their "proofs" are based on semantic
> >>>> incoherence and are therefore invalid.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>
> >>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>
> >>> Tarski's theorem only applies to formal mathematics, not to real-life natural-language-expressed statements with truth values. It hasn't been conclusively shown whether or not natural language and formal math are in a sense equivalent.
> >> Richard Montague sufficiently proved this with his Montague grammar of
> >> natural language semantics.
> >>>
> >>> I do not endorse your mathematical claims in many cases.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>
> >> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >> minds." Einstein
> >
> > I hadn't really heard of Montague grammar before you mentioned it, but it is interesting.
> >
> > Maybe you are right, but I don't think I agree with the claim that Montague has proved that English and math are equivalent. I argue there is a problem with defining words precisely. In particular, I don't think there has been an efficient algorithm published establishing how to determine the accuracy of an "English language proof." That is, there is no known axiomatization of true English (or other language) sentences.
> >
> > As you might expect, I would point to the difficulty in formalizing the liar's sentence in English in a way that yields a sensible truth value.
> The liar sentence is simple not a truth bearer in the same sort of way
> that the following sentence is not a truth bearer: What time is it?
> > In particular, the axioms of "true English sentences" would probably need to be inconsistent, incomplete (i.e., some sentences would not have a truth value, perhaps even some that English speakers would think should have truth values), or not part of a first order formal theory.
> >
> The ability to precisely define the meaning of words does not prevent
> them from forming incoherent sentences:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds." Einstein

I believe you are saying that "incoherent sentences" are not eligible to be wfs. I'm pretty sure (though not totally sure) that would represent a formal theory that is not first order.

It isn't clear to me that the problem of deciding whether or not a string of symbols in a formal theory like the one you describe would be a valid wf is decidable. That is where halting-problem-related issues might become problematic.

On 6/17/2021 2:17 PM, DV wrote:
> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:10:10 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/17/2021 1:58 PM, DV wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:44:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/17/2021 1:23 PM, DV wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/17/2021 11:08 AM, DV wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
>>>>>>>> Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
>>>>>>>> ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>> In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tarski "proved" that {truth} cannot be precisely defined.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He and Gödel and Turing all used a variation of the liar paradox to
>>>>>> "prove" their point. In other words their "proofs" are based on semantic
>>>>>> incoherence and are therefore invalid.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>
>>>>> Tarski's theorem only applies to formal mathematics, not to real-life natural-language-expressed statements with truth values. It hasn't been conclusively shown whether or not natural language and formal math are in a sense equivalent.
>>>> Richard Montague sufficiently proved this with his Montague grammar of
>>>> natural language semantics.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not endorse your mathematical claims in many cases.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>
>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>
>>> I hadn't really heard of Montague grammar before you mentioned it, but it is interesting.
>>>
>>> Maybe you are right, but I don't think I agree with the claim that Montague has proved that English and math are equivalent. I argue there is a problem with defining words precisely. In particular, I don't think there has been an efficient algorithm published establishing how to determine the accuracy of an "English language proof." That is, there is no known axiomatization of true English (or other language) sentences.
>>>
>>> As you might expect, I would point to the difficulty in formalizing the liar's sentence in English in a way that yields a sensible truth value.
>> The liar sentence is simple not a truth bearer in the same sort of way
>> that the following sentence is not a truth bearer: What time is it?
>>> In particular, the axioms of "true English sentences" would probably need to be inconsistent, incomplete (i.e., some sentences would not have a truth value, perhaps even some that English speakers would think should have truth values), or not part of a first order formal theory.
>>>
>> The ability to precisely define the meaning of words does not prevent
>> them from forming incoherent sentences:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>> minds." Einstein
>
> I believe you are saying that "incoherent sentences" are not eligible to be wfs. I'm pretty sure (though not totally sure) that would represent a formal theory that is not first order.
>

Of course it is not mere FOL. I invented MTT to handle this.
The Cyc project has a much richer language named CycL.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF

> It isn't clear to me that the problem of deciding whether or not a string of symbols in a formal theory like the one you describe would be a valid wf is decidable. That is where halting-problem-related issues might become problematic.
>

That is why I needed to refute the HP proofs.

Making an actual program that correctly decides the problem case proves
that such a program does exist.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:25:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 6/17/2021 2:17 PM, DV wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:10:10 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 6/17/2021 1:58 PM, DV wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:44:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 6/17/2021 1:23 PM, DV wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/17/2021 11:08 AM, DV wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
> >>>>>>>> Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
> >>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
> >>>>>>>> ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>> In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tarski "proved" that {truth} cannot be precisely defined.
> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> He and Gödel and Turing all used a variation of the liar paradox to
> >>>>>> "prove" their point. In other words their "proofs" are based on semantic
> >>>>>> incoherence and are therefore invalid.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tarski's theorem only applies to formal mathematics, not to real-life natural-language-expressed statements with truth values. It hasn't been conclusively shown whether or not natural language and formal math are in a sense equivalent.
> >>>> Richard Montague sufficiently proved this with his Montague grammar of
> >>>> natural language semantics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I do not endorse your mathematical claims in many cases.
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>
> >>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>
> >>> I hadn't really heard of Montague grammar before you mentioned it, but it is interesting.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe you are right, but I don't think I agree with the claim that Montague has proved that English and math are equivalent. I argue there is a problem with defining words precisely. In particular, I don't think there has been an efficient algorithm published establishing how to determine the accuracy of an "English language proof." That is, there is no known axiomatization of true English (or other language) sentences.
> >>>
> >>> As you might expect, I would point to the difficulty in formalizing the liar's sentence in English in a way that yields a sensible truth value.
> >> The liar sentence is simple not a truth bearer in the same sort of way
> >> that the following sentence is not a truth bearer: What time is it?
> >>> In particular, the axioms of "true English sentences" would probably need to be inconsistent, incomplete (i.e., some sentences would not have a truth value, perhaps even some that English speakers would think should have truth values), or not part of a first order formal theory.
> >>>
> >> The ability to precisely define the meaning of words does not prevent
> >> them from forming incoherent sentences:
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
> >> --
> >> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>
> >> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >> minds." Einstein
> >
> > I believe you are saying that "incoherent sentences" are not eligible to be wfs. I'm pretty sure (though not totally sure) that would represent a formal theory that is not first order.
> >
> Of course it is not mere FOL. I invented MTT to handle this.
> The Cyc project has a much richer language named CycL.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
> > It isn't clear to me that the problem of deciding whether or not a string of symbols in a formal theory like the one you describe would be a valid wf is decidable. That is where halting-problem-related issues might become problematic.
> >
> That is why I needed to refute the HP proofs.
>
> Making an actual program that correctly decides the problem case proves
> that such a program does exist.
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds." Einstein

I'm sure that according to my assumptions about math, I wouldn't accept the conclusions of your research. Nevertheless, it is neat that you write about math/CS on the internet frequently.

On 6/17/2021 4:17 PM, DV wrote:
> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:25:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/17/2021 2:17 PM, DV wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:10:10 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/17/2021 1:58 PM, DV wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:44:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/17/2021 1:23 PM, DV wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2021 11:08 AM, DV wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
>>>>>>>>>> Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
>>>>>>>>>> ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>> In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tarski "proved" that {truth} cannot be precisely defined.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He and Gödel and Turing all used a variation of the liar paradox to
>>>>>>>> "prove" their point. In other words their "proofs" are based on semantic
>>>>>>>> incoherence and are therefore invalid.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tarski's theorem only applies to formal mathematics, not to real-life natural-language-expressed statements with truth values. It hasn't been conclusively shown whether or not natural language and formal math are in a sense equivalent.
>>>>>> Richard Montague sufficiently proved this with his Montague grammar of
>>>>>> natural language semantics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not endorse your mathematical claims in many cases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>
>>>>> I hadn't really heard of Montague grammar before you mentioned it, but it is interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you are right, but I don't think I agree with the claim that Montague has proved that English and math are equivalent. I argue there is a problem with defining words precisely. In particular, I don't think there has been an efficient algorithm published establishing how to determine the accuracy of an "English language proof." That is, there is no known axiomatization of true English (or other language) sentences.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you might expect, I would point to the difficulty in formalizing the liar's sentence in English in a way that yields a sensible truth value.
>>>> The liar sentence is simple not a truth bearer in the same sort of way
>>>> that the following sentence is not a truth bearer: What time is it?
>>>>> In particular, the axioms of "true English sentences" would probably need to be inconsistent, incomplete (i.e., some sentences would not have a truth value, perhaps even some that English speakers would think should have truth values), or not part of a first order formal theory.
>>>>>
>>>> The ability to precisely define the meaning of words does not prevent
>>>> them from forming incoherent sentences:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>
>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>
>>> I believe you are saying that "incoherent sentences" are not eligible to be wfs. I'm pretty sure (though not totally sure) that would represent a formal theory that is not first order.
>>>
>> Of course it is not mere FOL. I invented MTT to handle this.
>> The Cyc project has a much richer language named CycL.
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
>>> It isn't clear to me that the problem of deciding whether or not a string of symbols in a formal theory like the one you describe would be a valid wf is decidable. That is where halting-problem-related issues might become problematic.
>>>
>> That is why I needed to refute the HP proofs.
>>
>> Making an actual program that correctly decides the problem case proves
>> that such a program does exist.
>>
>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>> minds." Einstein
>
> I'm sure that according to my assumptions about math, I wouldn't accept the conclusions of your research. Nevertheless, it is neat that you write about math/CS on the internet frequently.
>

It is very easy to conform to the herd mentality and simply assume that
anything that goes against the gospel doctrine of known theorems must be
incorrect because everyone knows that all theorems are always infallible.

On the other hand no one has pointed out a single mistake in the gist of
my rebuttal of the halting problem proofs after six months of dozens of
daily reviews by about six different reasonably competent reviewers.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On Friday, 18 June 2021 at 02:20:43 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 12:49:01 PM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> > On Friday, 18 June 2021 at 00:08:39 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> > > > > Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
> > > > >
> > > > > 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food.. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
> > > > Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
> > > > ----
> > > > On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
> > > > ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
> > > > ...
> > > > ----
> > > > In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
> > > I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
> > >
> > > I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
> > Yes, that is a funny fact that "everyone has the right to be wrong".
> > But I think this should be considered in "learning stage". But then, who is not
> > in learning stage? ...
> > Anyone's action/thought are biologically-hard-wired correct, even inconsistent.
> > I think in the final, Nature decides.
> I don't think I agree that Nature as opposed to Nurture plays 100% of the role in a person's life, thoughts, and actions. I could be wrong though.
>

By Nature, I mean Heaven, God, The Universe...
If I know something about it, human are not allowed to use it.

> What do you mean by "learning stage?"

In every moment, we interact with The real world. If we take lessons, we learn
something, which means the previous us might be ignorant, which also means
that if we never learn, we are of omniscience.
In a way, that scientists doing experiments are "trying to be wrong".

On Friday, 18 June 2021 at 03:25:28 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 6/17/2021 2:17 PM, DV wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:10:10 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 6/17/2021 1:58 PM, DV wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:44:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 6/17/2021 1:23 PM, DV wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/17/2021 11:08 AM, DV wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
> >>>>>>>> Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
> >>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
> >>>>>>>> ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>> In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tarski "proved" that {truth} cannot be precisely defined.
> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> He and Gödel and Turing all used a variation of the liar paradox to
> >>>>>> "prove" their point. In other words their "proofs" are based on semantic
> >>>>>> incoherence and are therefore invalid.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tarski's theorem only applies to formal mathematics, not to real-life natural-language-expressed statements with truth values. It hasn't been conclusively shown whether or not natural language and formal math are in a sense equivalent.
> >>>> Richard Montague sufficiently proved this with his Montague grammar of
> >>>> natural language semantics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I do not endorse your mathematical claims in many cases.
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>
> >>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>
> >>> I hadn't really heard of Montague grammar before you mentioned it, but it is interesting.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe you are right, but I don't think I agree with the claim that Montague has proved that English and math are equivalent. I argue there is a problem with defining words precisely. In particular, I don't think there has been an efficient algorithm published establishing how to determine the accuracy of an "English language proof." That is, there is no known axiomatization of true English (or other language) sentences.
> >>>
> >>> As you might expect, I would point to the difficulty in formalizing the liar's sentence in English in a way that yields a sensible truth value.
> >> The liar sentence is simple not a truth bearer in the same sort of way
> >> that the following sentence is not a truth bearer: What time is it?
> >>> In particular, the axioms of "true English sentences" would probably need to be inconsistent, incomplete (i.e., some sentences would not have a truth value, perhaps even some that English speakers would think should have truth values), or not part of a first order formal theory.
> >>>
> >> The ability to precisely define the meaning of words does not prevent
> >> them from forming incoherent sentences:
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
> >> --
> >> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>
> >> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >> minds." Einstein
> >
> > I believe you are saying that "incoherent sentences" are not eligible to be wfs. I'm pretty sure (though not totally sure) that would represent a formal theory that is not first order.
> >
> Of course it is not mere FOL. I invented MTT to handle this.
> The Cyc project has a much richer language named CycL.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
> > It isn't clear to me that the problem of deciding whether or not a string of symbols in a formal theory like the one you describe would be a valid wf is decidable. That is where halting-problem-related issues might become problematic.
> >
> That is why I needed to refute the HP proofs.
>
> Making an actual program that correctly decides the problem case proves
> that such a program does exist.
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds." Einstein

As I read more, more convinced that your proof is really messy and
unnecessarily complicated. To make your claim clear, try implement a function
conforming to the specification:

// [Syn] Decide whether the function %p, given the argument %a, will halt or not,
//
// [Ret] true: p(a) will return (Or, TM stops at final accept or reject states)
// false: otherwise (p(a) will not return)
//
bool HaltDecider(Func f, Arg a);

Note: HaltDecider can be coded in any computer language, e.g. quantum computer
or massive neural network, even a biological brain that another can read and
execute.

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 10:39:12 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> On Friday, 18 June 2021 at 02:20:43 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 12:49:01 PM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> > > On Friday, 18 June 2021 at 00:08:39 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> > > > > > Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
> > > > > Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
> > > > > ----
> > > > > On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > ...
> > > > > People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
> > > > > ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
> > > > > ...
> > > > > ----
> > > > > In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
> > > > I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
> > > Yes, that is a funny fact that "everyone has the right to be wrong".
> > > But I think this should be considered in "learning stage". But then, who is not
> > > in learning stage? ...
> > > Anyone's action/thought are biologically-hard-wired correct, even inconsistent.
> > > I think in the final, Nature decides.
> > I don't think I agree that Nature as opposed to Nurture plays 100% of the role in a person's life, thoughts, and actions. I could be wrong though.
> >
> By Nature, I mean Heaven, God, The Universe...
> If I know something about it, human are not allowed to use it.

OK, I won't ask more about this.

> > What do you mean by "learning stage?"
> In every moment, we interact with The real world. If we take lessons, we learn
> something, which means the previous us might be ignorant, which also means
> that if we never learn, we are of omniscience.
> In a way, that scientists doing experiments are "trying to be wrong".

This is more interesting than most of the other writing on comp.theory to me. It sounds like you're saying that "to be alive is to learn" in a sense, and that if you know everything, you stop learning, meaning you must not be alive. Why do you say that scientists are "trying to be wrong?" Is it because you would say they are worried about knowing everything and thus too much, or because you would say they don't want others to know too much? Is there some other safety-related motive? Why couldn't scientists just keep things they know to themselves if they are too important/sensitive in some way?

I might have your assumptions wrong and I'm not saying I agree with your way of looking at things, but I do find different perspectives interesting.

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 5:35:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 6/17/2021 4:17 PM, DV wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:25:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 6/17/2021 2:17 PM, DV wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:10:10 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 6/17/2021 1:58 PM, DV wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:44:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/17/2021 1:23 PM, DV wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2021 11:08 AM, DV wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually.. This helped me in the past, too.
> >>>>>>>>>> Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
> >>>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>> People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
> >>>>>>>>>> ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
> >>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>>> In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Tarski "proved" that {truth} cannot be precisely defined.
> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> He and Gödel and Turing all used a variation of the liar paradox to
> >>>>>>>> "prove" their point. In other words their "proofs" are based on semantic
> >>>>>>>> incoherence and are therefore invalid.
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tarski's theorem only applies to formal mathematics, not to real-life natural-language-expressed statements with truth values. It hasn't been conclusively shown whether or not natural language and formal math are in a sense equivalent.
> >>>>>> Richard Montague sufficiently proved this with his Montague grammar of
> >>>>>> natural language semantics.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I do not endorse your mathematical claims in many cases.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I hadn't really heard of Montague grammar before you mentioned it, but it is interesting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe you are right, but I don't think I agree with the claim that Montague has proved that English and math are equivalent. I argue there is a problem with defining words precisely. In particular, I don't think there has been an efficient algorithm published establishing how to determine the accuracy of an "English language proof." That is, there is no known axiomatization of true English (or other language) sentences.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you might expect, I would point to the difficulty in formalizing the liar's sentence in English in a way that yields a sensible truth value..
> >>>> The liar sentence is simple not a truth bearer in the same sort of way
> >>>> that the following sentence is not a truth bearer: What time is it?
> >>>>> In particular, the axioms of "true English sentences" would probably need to be inconsistent, incomplete (i.e., some sentences would not have a truth value, perhaps even some that English speakers would think should have truth values), or not part of a first order formal theory.
> >>>>>
> >>>> The ability to precisely define the meaning of words does not prevent
> >>>> them from forming incoherent sentences:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
> >>>> --
> >>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>
> >>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>
> >>> I believe you are saying that "incoherent sentences" are not eligible to be wfs. I'm pretty sure (though not totally sure) that would represent a formal theory that is not first order.
> >>>
> >> Of course it is not mere FOL. I invented MTT to handle this.
> >> The Cyc project has a much richer language named CycL.
> >>
> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
> >>> It isn't clear to me that the problem of deciding whether or not a string of symbols in a formal theory like the one you describe would be a valid wf is decidable. That is where halting-problem-related issues might become problematic.
> >>>
> >> That is why I needed to refute the HP proofs.
> >>
> >> Making an actual program that correctly decides the problem case proves
> >> that such a program does exist.
> >>
> >> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
> >>
> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
> >> --
> >> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>
> >> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >> minds." Einstein
> >
> > I'm sure that according to my assumptions about math, I wouldn't accept the conclusions of your research. Nevertheless, it is neat that you write about math/CS on the internet frequently.
> >
> It is very easy to conform to the herd mentality and simply assume that
> anything that goes against the gospel doctrine of known theorems must be
> incorrect because everyone knows that all theorems are always infallible.
>
> On the other hand no one has pointed out a single mistake in the gist of
> my rebuttal of the halting problem proofs after six months of dozens of
> daily reviews by about six different reasonably competent reviewers.
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
>
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds." Einstein

On Friday, 18 June 2021 at 17:41:40 UTC+1, DV wrote:
> Why do you say that scientists are "trying to be wrong?" Is it because you would say they are
> worried about knowing everything and thus too much, or because you would say they don't want
> others to know too much? Is there some other safety-related motive? Why couldn't scientists just
> keep things they know to themselves if they are too important/sensitive in some way?
>
An important theorist about the philosophy of science, Karl Popper, said that scientists
do try to prove their hypotheses, they try to falsify them. That's true in statistics, where you
never prove your test hypothesis, you only reject the null hypothesis.

Unfortunately the idea of falsifiability has been used by creationists to reject evolutionary
theory.

On 6/18/2021 11:50 AM, DV wrote:
> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 5:35:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/17/2021 4:17 PM, DV wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:25:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/17/2021 2:17 PM, DV wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:10:10 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/17/2021 1:58 PM, DV wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:44:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2021 1:23 PM, DV wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2021 11:08 AM, DV wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
>>>>>>>>>>>> ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>> In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tarski "proved" that {truth} cannot be precisely defined.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He and Gödel and Turing all used a variation of the liar paradox to
>>>>>>>>>> "prove" their point. In other words their "proofs" are based on semantic
>>>>>>>>>> incoherence and are therefore invalid.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tarski's theorem only applies to formal mathematics, not to real-life natural-language-expressed statements with truth values. It hasn't been conclusively shown whether or not natural language and formal math are in a sense equivalent.
>>>>>>>> Richard Montague sufficiently proved this with his Montague grammar of
>>>>>>>> natural language semantics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do not endorse your mathematical claims in many cases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hadn't really heard of Montague grammar before you mentioned it, but it is interesting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you are right, but I don't think I agree with the claim that Montague has proved that English and math are equivalent. I argue there is a problem with defining words precisely. In particular, I don't think there has been an efficient algorithm published establishing how to determine the accuracy of an "English language proof." That is, there is no known axiomatization of true English (or other language) sentences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you might expect, I would point to the difficulty in formalizing the liar's sentence in English in a way that yields a sensible truth value.
>>>>>> The liar sentence is simple not a truth bearer in the same sort of way
>>>>>> that the following sentence is not a truth bearer: What time is it?
>>>>>>> In particular, the axioms of "true English sentences" would probably need to be inconsistent, incomplete (i.e., some sentences would not have a truth value, perhaps even some that English speakers would think should have truth values), or not part of a first order formal theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ability to precisely define the meaning of words does not prevent
>>>>>> them from forming incoherent sentences:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe you are saying that "incoherent sentences" are not eligible to be wfs. I'm pretty sure (though not totally sure) that would represent a formal theory that is not first order.
>>>>>
>>>> Of course it is not mere FOL. I invented MTT to handle this.
>>>> The Cyc project has a much richer language named CycL.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
>>>>> It isn't clear to me that the problem of deciding whether or not a string of symbols in a formal theory like the one you describe would be a valid wf is decidable. That is where halting-problem-related issues might become problematic.
>>>>>
>>>> That is why I needed to refute the HP proofs.
>>>>
>>>> Making an actual program that correctly decides the problem case proves
>>>> that such a program does exist.
>>>>
>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>
>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>
>>> I'm sure that according to my assumptions about math, I wouldn't accept the conclusions of your research. Nevertheless, it is neat that you write about math/CS on the internet frequently.
>>>
>> It is very easy to conform to the herd mentality and simply assume that
>> anything that goes against the gospel doctrine of known theorems must be
>> incorrect because everyone knows that all theorems are always infallible.
>>
>> On the other hand no one has pointed out a single mistake in the gist of
>> my rebuttal of the halting problem proofs after six months of dozens of
>> daily reviews by about six different reasonably competent reviewers.
>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>
>>
>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>> minds." Einstein
>
> Please tell me more about the "herd mentality."
>

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 12:58:27 PM UTC-4, malcolm.ar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 18 June 2021 at 17:41:40 UTC+1, DV wrote:
> > Why do you say that scientists are "trying to be wrong?" Is it because you would say they are
> > worried about knowing everything and thus too much, or because you would say they don't want
> > others to know too much? Is there some other safety-related motive? Why couldn't scientists just
> > keep things they know to themselves if they are too important/sensitive in some way?
> >
> An important theorist about the philosophy of science, Karl Popper, said that scientists
> do try to prove their hypotheses, they try to falsify them. That's true in statistics, where you
> never prove your test hypothesis, you only reject the null hypothesis.
>
> Unfortunately the idea of falsifiability has been used by creationists to reject evolutionary
> theory.

Well of course you never "prove" anything in stats, but rejecting the null hypothesis is the means to supporting the other hypothesis.

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 1:02:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 6/18/2021 11:50 AM, DV wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 5:35:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 6/17/2021 4:17 PM, DV wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:25:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 6/17/2021 2:17 PM, DV wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 3:10:10 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/17/2021 1:58 PM, DV wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:44:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2021 1:23 PM, DV wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2021 11:08 AM, DV wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-4, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:20:32 UTC+8, DV wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are three tips for how a person who is mentally ill or struggling with some sort of serious trauma or other stressful issue can try to get by:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - A possible mantra for any non-bad-guy: "I deserve to feel good."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - When feeling upset and low, try to think about something conflict-free, stimulating, fairly calming, impersonal, and not excessively arousing. E.g., in the past when I had this issue, I liked to think about food. (You don't have to actually eat food though.) You don't necessarily want to think about the beach or whatever, unless that works for you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 - If dealing with some sort of "unshakeable bad feeling" that is not circumstantial: Consider using the "I'm not 500 pounds it's a 350 pound backpack" metaphorical thought experiment. Your bad feeling is a 350 backpack that will pass someday. You don't need to jog 10 miles a day to get rid of it (metaphorically or otherwise). Try to separate the unpleasant feeling from your sense of immediate reality; whether the feeling is rational or not, it isn't helping you and it will (presumably) go away eventually. This helped me in the past, too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Borrow words from https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/83ZTB9c9Z5Q/m/jebiwtWPBQAJ
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 08:33:29 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> People who lie to themselves are the worse type of people, they have NO
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ONE they can trust, not even themselves.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In Chinese "自欺欺人": deceive oneself deceive others, the common type of disinformation on recent media.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I agree with the idea that is a good idea to try to be right and tell yourself the truth. Sometimes, the truth can be hard to figure out..
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think people who are confused or dishonest with themselves are really automatically that bad though. According to me, everyone has the right to be wrong. The key question is: Are the actions of any person appropriate, regardless of what they think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Tarski "proved" that {truth} cannot be precisely defined.
> >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> He and Gödel and Turing all used a variation of the liar paradox to
> >>>>>>>>>> "prove" their point. In other words their "proofs" are based on semantic
> >>>>>>>>>> incoherence and are therefore invalid.
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Tarski's theorem only applies to formal mathematics, not to real-life natural-language-expressed statements with truth values. It hasn't been conclusively shown whether or not natural language and formal math are in a sense equivalent.
> >>>>>>>> Richard Montague sufficiently proved this with his Montague grammar of
> >>>>>>>> natural language semantics.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I do not endorse your mathematical claims in many cases.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I hadn't really heard of Montague grammar before you mentioned it, but it is interesting.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Maybe you are right, but I don't think I agree with the claim that Montague has proved that English and math are equivalent. I argue there is a problem with defining words precisely. In particular, I don't think there has been an efficient algorithm published establishing how to determine the accuracy of an "English language proof." That is, there is no known axiomatization of true English (or other language) sentences.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As you might expect, I would point to the difficulty in formalizing the liar's sentence in English in a way that yields a sensible truth value.
> >>>>>> The liar sentence is simple not a truth bearer in the same sort of way
> >>>>>> that the following sentence is not a truth bearer: What time is it?
> >>>>>>> In particular, the axioms of "true English sentences" would probably need to be inconsistent, incomplete (i.e., some sentences would not have a truth value, perhaps even some that English speakers would think should have truth values), or not part of a first order formal theory.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> The ability to precisely define the meaning of words does not prevent
> >>>>>> them from forming incoherent sentences:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I believe you are saying that "incoherent sentences" are not eligible to be wfs. I'm pretty sure (though not totally sure) that would represent a formal theory that is not first order.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Of course it is not mere FOL. I invented MTT to handle this.
> >>>> The Cyc project has a much richer language named CycL.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
> >>>>> It isn't clear to me that the problem of deciding whether or not a string of symbols in a formal theory like the one you describe would be a valid wf is decidable. That is where halting-problem-related issues might become problematic.
> >>>>>
> >>>> That is why I needed to refute the HP proofs.
> >>>>
> >>>> Making an actual program that correctly decides the problem case proves
> >>>> that such a program does exist.
> >>>>
> >>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
> >>>> --
> >>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>
> >>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>
> >>> I'm sure that according to my assumptions about math, I wouldn't accept the conclusions of your research. Nevertheless, it is neat that you write about math/CS on the internet frequently.
> >>>
> >> It is very easy to conform to the herd mentality and simply assume that
> >> anything that goes against the gospel doctrine of known theorems must be
> >> incorrect because everyone knows that all theorems are always infallible.
> >>
> >> On the other hand no one has pointed out a single mistake in the gist of
> >> my rebuttal of the halting problem proofs after six months of dozens of
> >> daily reviews by about six different reasonably competent reviewers.
> >> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
> >>
> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>
> >> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >> minds." Einstein
> >
> > Please tell me more about the "herd mentality."
> >
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/groupthink
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds." Einstein