The epistemological foundation is the notion of truth itself is anchored
in philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/

Here is my addition to this field: Knowledge is a fully justified true
belief such that the truth of the belief is a necessary consequence of
its justification.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2021-10-17 08:23, olcott wrote:
> The epistemological foundation is the notion of truth itself is anchored
> in philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/

The foundation of what?

And the above sentence has too many verbs has.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 10/17/2021 11:20 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-10-17 08:23, olcott wrote:
>> The epistemological foundation is the notion of truth itself is
>> anchored in philosophy.
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
>
> The foundation of what?
>
> And the above sentence has too many verbs has.
>
> André
>

It you make sure to ignore the links that counts as sufficient evidence
that you do not want an honest dialogue.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 10/17/21 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
> The epistemological foundation is the notion of truth itself is anchored
> in philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
>
> Here is my addition to this field: Knowledge is a fully justified true
> belief such that the truth of the belief is a necessary consequence of
> its justification.
>

And is this 'definition' of Knowledge compatible with the field of Logic
you are trying to apply it to?

There is an immense difference between the 'Logic' of Philosophy and the
Logic of Mathematics.

Everything eventually needs to boil down to what definitions you accept.
Mathematics has its own set it works with. If you want to disagree with
them, fine, you just can't be working in the field of Mathematics.

If you want to try to develope an alternate field of Mathematics based
on a different set of definition, go ahead, just make it clear you are
working a different field and start to work. One problem you will run
into is you likely need to start a the very basics to make sure what
still holds and not just jump to things like computation theory.

My one concern is that you don't seem to have the basic critical
reasoning capability to try to pull of something like this. The fact
that you don't see the problem with having your logic system being able
to prove two contradictory statements makes your really unsuitable for
this sort of system building.

On 10/17/2021 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:

> Here is my addition to this field:
> Knowledge is a fully justified true belief

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
| | Attributed to American philosopher Edmund Gettier,
| Gettier-type counterexamples (called "Gettier-cases")
| challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB)
| account of knowledge.

| In a 1966 scenario known as "The sheep in the field", Roderick
| Chisholm asks us to imagine that someone, X, is standing outside
| a field looking at something that looks like a sheep (although
| in fact, it is a dog disguised as a sheep). X believes there is
| a sheep in the field, and in fact, X is right because there is a
| sheep behind the hill in the middle of the field. Hence, X has a
| justified true belief that there is a sheep in the field. But is
| that belief knowledge?

> such that the truth of the belief is a necessary consequence of
> its justification.

We have evidence (sometimes).
The evidence justifies a belief (sometimes).
The justified belief is also true (sometimes).

We might not have evidence of some true circumstance.

If we have evidence of it, it might not be enough or
we might not understand the consequences of the evidence.

( A good example of this:
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_and_Product_Puzzle
( |
( | The Sum and Product Puzzle, also known as the Impossible
( | Puzzle because it seems to lack sufficient information
( | for a solution, is a logic puzzle.

Anyway, for various reason, our beliefs might not reflect
the evidence we have.

We might think we have evidence for a certain belief,
and we would be correct to believe it on that basis, but
the evidence is not what it seems to be. Coincidentally,
what we have been tricked into believing is actually true.
Justified belief that is also true. Is it knowledge?

On 2021-10-17 11:07, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2021 11:20 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-10-17 08:23, olcott wrote:
>>> The epistemological foundation is the notion of truth itself is
>>> anchored in philosophy.
>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
>>
>> The foundation of what?
>>
>> And the above sentence has too many verbs has.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> It you make sure to ignore the links that counts as sufficient evidence
> that you do not want an honest dialogue.

I'm well aware of what epistemological foundationalism is. That tells me
nothing about what *you* are attempting to convey with the above
grammatically incoherent attempt at a sentence.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 10/17/2021 12:44 PM, Jim Burns wrote:
> On 10/17/2021 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>
>> Here is my addition to this field:
>> Knowledge is a fully justified true belief
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
> |
> | Attributed to American philosopher Edmund Gettier,
> | Gettier-type counterexamples (called "Gettier-cases")
> | challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB)
> | account of knowledge.
>
> | In a 1966 scenario known as "The sheep in the field", Roderick
> | Chisholm asks us to imagine that someone, X, is standing outside
> | a field looking at something that looks like a sheep (although
> | in fact, it is a dog disguised as a sheep). X believes there is
> | a sheep in the field, and in fact, X is right because there is a
> | sheep behind the hill in the middle of the field. Hence, X has a
> | justified true belief that there is a sheep in the field. But is
> | that belief knowledge?
>
>> such that the truth of the belief is a necessary consequence of
>> its justification.
>
> We have evidence (sometimes).
> The evidence justifies a belief (sometimes).
> The justified belief is also true (sometimes).
>
> We might not have evidence of some true circumstance.
>
> If we have evidence of it, it might not be enough or
> we might not understand the consequences of the evidence.
>
> ( A good example of this:
> ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_and_Product_Puzzle
> ( |
> ( | The Sum and Product Puzzle, also known as the Impossible
> ( | Puzzle because it seems to lack sufficient information
> ( | for a solution, is a logic puzzle.
>
> Anyway, for various reason, our beliefs might not reflect
> the evidence we have.
>
> We might think we have evidence for a certain belief,
> and we would be correct to believe it on that basis, but
> the evidence is not what it seems to be. Coincidentally,
> what we have been tricked into believing is actually true.
> Justified belief that is also true. Is it knowledge?
>

We can correct for the Gettier problem (with my correction) by defining
knowledge as:

Knowledge is a fully justified true belief such that the truth of the
belief is a necessary consequence of its justification.

This is best applied to the analytic side of the philosophical analytic
/ synthetic distinction where an expression of language can be verified
as true entirely on the basis of its meaning.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 10/17/2021 12:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-10-17 11:07, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2021 11:20 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-17 08:23, olcott wrote:
>>>> The epistemological foundation is the notion of truth itself is
>>>> anchored in philosophy.
>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
>>>
>>> The foundation of what?
>>>
>>> And the above sentence has too many verbs has.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> It you make sure to ignore the links that counts as sufficient
>> evidence that you do not want an honest dialogue.
>
> I'm well aware of what epistemological foundationalism is. That tells me
> nothing about what *you* are attempting to convey with the above
> grammatically incoherent attempt at a sentence.
>
> André
>

We can correct for the Gettier problem (with my correction) by defining
knowledge as:

YOU SIMPLY IGNORED THIS PART:
Knowledge is a fully justified true belief such that the truth of the
belief is a necessary consequence of its justification.

This is best applied to the analytic side of the philosophical analytic
/ synthetic distinction where an expression of language can be verified
as true entirely on the basis of its meaning.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 10/17/2021 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/17/21 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>> The epistemological foundation is the notion of truth itself is
>> anchored in philosophy.
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
>>
>> Here is my addition to this field: Knowledge is a fully justified true
>> belief such that the truth of the belief is a necessary consequence of
>> its justification.
>>
>
> And is this 'definition' of Knowledge compatible with the field of Logic
> you are trying to apply it to?
>
> There is an immense difference between the 'Logic' of Philosophy and the
> Logic of Mathematics.
>

Whenever anyone "knows" anything that is untrue then we can definitely
conclude that their definition of "know" is necessarily incorrect.

Whenever anyone uses the term "know" to mean {falsely presume} we know
that they are a deceiver, possibly including self-deception.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2021-10-17 11:57, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2021 12:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-10-17 11:07, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2021 11:20 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-17 08:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>> The epistemological foundation is the notion of truth itself is
>>>>> anchored in philosophy.
>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
>>>>
>>>> The foundation of what?
>>>>
>>>> And the above sentence has too many verbs has.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> It you make sure to ignore the links that counts as sufficient
>>> evidence that you do not want an honest dialogue.
>>
>> I'm well aware of what epistemological foundationalism is. That tells
>> me nothing about what *you* are attempting to convey with the above
>> grammatically incoherent attempt at a sentence.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> We can correct for the Gettier problem (with my correction) by defining
> knowledge as:
> YOU SIMPLY IGNORED THIS PART:
> Knowledge is a fully justified true belief such that the truth of the
> belief is a necessary consequence of its justification.

I did not ignore this. You made an incoherent statement which didn't
even clearly identify its subject matter and then claimed the above was
an 'addition' to this.

> This is best applied to the analytic side of the philosophical analytic
> / synthetic distinction where an expression of language can be verified
> as true entirely on the basis of its meaning.

Foundationalism is an approach to *epistemology*. The analytic/synthetic
distinction is part of the philosophy *of language*, which is an
entirely unrelated field. But, since epistemology is concerned with our
knowledge of the world (i.e. it deals with empirical knowledge), it
wouldn't care about 'analytic' sentences at all.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 10/17/21 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2021 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/17/21 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> The epistemological foundation is the notion of truth itself is
>>> anchored in philosophy.
>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
>>>
>>> Here is my addition to this field: Knowledge is a fully justified
>>> true belief such that the truth of the belief is a necessary
>>> consequence of its justification.
>>>
>>
>> And is this 'definition' of Knowledge compatible with the field of
>> Logic you are trying to apply it to?
>>
>> There is an immense difference between the 'Logic' of Philosophy and
>> the Logic of Mathematics.
>>
>
> Whenever anyone "knows" anything that is untrue then we can definitely
> conclude that their definition of "know" is necessarily incorrect.
>
> Whenever anyone uses the term "know" to mean {falsely presume} we know
> that they are a deceiver, possibly including self-deception.
>

Thus you admit you are deceiver?

You ADMIT that H^(<H^>) is a Halting Computation.

You ADMIT that your H(<H^>,<H^>) says that H^(<H^>) is a non-halting
computation.

You ADMIT that you 'Know' this to be a True Answer.

This is contradictory, so something must be untrue.

Thus, you are a deceiver, and likely actually self-deceived.

On 10/17/2021 1:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-10-17 11:57, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2021 12:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-17 11:07, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2021 11:20 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-10-17 08:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> The epistemological foundation is the notion of truth itself is
>>>>>> anchored in philosophy.
>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
>>>>>
>>>>> The foundation of what?
>>>>>
>>>>> And the above sentence has too many verbs has.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It you make sure to ignore the links that counts as sufficient
>>>> evidence that you do not want an honest dialogue.
>>>
>>> I'm well aware of what epistemological foundationalism is. That tells
>>> me nothing about what *you* are attempting to convey with the above
>>> grammatically incoherent attempt at a sentence.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> We can correct for the Gettier problem (with my correction) by
>> defining knowledge as:
>> YOU SIMPLY IGNORED THIS PART:
>> Knowledge is a fully justified true belief such that the truth of the
>> belief is a necessary consequence of its justification.
>
> I did not ignore this. You made an incoherent statement which didn't
> even clearly identify its subject matter and then claimed the above was
> an 'addition' to this.
>
>> This is best applied to the analytic side of the philosophical
>> analytic / synthetic distinction where an expression of language can
>> be verified as true entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>
> Foundationalism is an approach to *epistemology*. The analytic/synthetic
> distinction is part of the philosophy *of language*, which is an
> entirely unrelated field. But, since epistemology is concerned with our
> knowledge of the world (i.e. it deals with empirical knowledge), it
> wouldn't care about 'analytic' sentences at all.
>
> André
>

I will put it in simpler terms.
The only way that we can know with 100% perfectly complete logical
certainty that an expression of language is true is when its truth can
be totally verified entirely on the basis of its meaning.

This does provide the foundation of all analytical truth.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 10/17/2021 2:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/17/21 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2021 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/17/21 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> The epistemological foundation is the notion of truth itself is
>>>> anchored in philosophy.
>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
>>>>
>>>> Here is my addition to this field: Knowledge is a fully justified
>>>> true belief such that the truth of the belief is a necessary
>>>> consequence of its justification.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And is this 'definition' of Knowledge compatible with the field of
>>> Logic you are trying to apply it to?
>>>
>>> There is an immense difference between the 'Logic' of Philosophy and
>>> the Logic of Mathematics.
>>>
>>
>> Whenever anyone "knows" anything that is untrue then we can definitely
>> conclude that their definition of "know" is necessarily incorrect.
>>
>> Whenever anyone uses the term "know" to mean {falsely presume} we know
>> that they are a deceiver, possibly including self-deception.
>>
>
> Thus you admit you are deceiver?
>
> You ADMIT that H^(<H^>) is a Halting Computation.
>

You deliberately twist my words:

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

If the simulated input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its
final state WHETHER OR NOT THIS SIMULATION IS ABORTED then Ĥ.qx
correctly transitions to Ĥ.qn.

Nothing that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does can possibly contradict this fact.
It is like I am claiming to have a black dog and your rebuttal proves
that I do not have a white cat.

> You ADMIT that your H(<H^>,<H^>) says that H^(<H^>) is a non-halting
> computation.
>
> You ADMIT that you 'Know' this to be a True Answer.
>
> This is contradictory, so something must be untrue.
>
> Thus, you are a deceiver, and likely actually self-deceived.
>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2021-10-17 13:06, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2021 1:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-10-17 11:57, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2021 12:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-17 11:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/17/2021 11:20 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-10-17 08:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> The epistemological foundation is the notion of truth itself is
>>>>>>> anchored in philosophy.
>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The foundation of what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the above sentence has too many verbs has.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It you make sure to ignore the links that counts as sufficient
>>>>> evidence that you do not want an honest dialogue.
>>>>
>>>> I'm well aware of what epistemological foundationalism is. That
>>>> tells me nothing about what *you* are attempting to convey with the
>>>> above grammatically incoherent attempt at a sentence.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> We can correct for the Gettier problem (with my correction) by
>>> defining knowledge as:
>>> YOU SIMPLY IGNORED THIS PART:
>>> Knowledge is a fully justified true belief such that the truth of the
>>> belief is a necessary consequence of its justification.
>>
>> I did not ignore this. You made an incoherent statement which didn't
>> even clearly identify its subject matter and then claimed the above
>> was an 'addition' to this.
>>
>>> This is best applied to the analytic side of the philosophical
>>> analytic / synthetic distinction where an expression of language can
>>> be verified as true entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>
>> Foundationalism is an approach to *epistemology*. The
>> analytic/synthetic distinction is part of the philosophy *of
>> language*, which is an entirely unrelated field. But, since
>> epistemology is concerned with our knowledge of the world (i.e. it
>> deals with empirical knowledge), it wouldn't care about 'analytic'
>> sentences at all.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> I will put it in simpler terms.
> The only way that we can know with 100% perfectly complete logical
> certainty that an expression of language is true is when its truth can
> be totally verified entirely on the basis of its meaning.

Putting aside the question of whether the above is even remotely
worthwhile, if that is your actual claim then why are you bringing up
Foundationalism, justification, or the Gettier problem, none of which
are concerned with expressions of language?

> This does provide the foundation of all analytical truth.

The set of purely analytic expressions of language is (a) extremely
small and (b) entirely uninteresting.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 10/17/21 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2021 2:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/17/21 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2021 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/21 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> The epistemological foundation is the notion of truth itself is
>>>>> anchored in philosophy.
>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is my addition to this field: Knowledge is a fully justified
>>>>> true belief such that the truth of the belief is a necessary
>>>>> consequence of its justification.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And is this 'definition' of Knowledge compatible with the field of
>>>> Logic you are trying to apply it to?
>>>>
>>>> There is an immense difference between the 'Logic' of Philosophy and
>>>> the Logic of Mathematics.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Whenever anyone "knows" anything that is untrue then we can
>>> definitely conclude that their definition of "know" is necessarily
>>> incorrect.
>>>
>>> Whenever anyone uses the term "know" to mean {falsely presume} we
>>> know that they are a deceiver, possibly including self-deception.
>>>
>>
>> Thus you admit you are deceiver?
>>
>> You ADMIT that H^(<H^>) is a Halting Computation.
>>
>
> You deliberately twist my words:
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

Isn't that H^ <H^> going to H^.qn which is a Halting State?

What is the 'twist' to the words.

>
> If the simulated input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its
> final state WHETHER OR NOT THIS SIMULATION IS ABORTED then Ĥ.qx
> correctly transitions to Ĥ.qn.

I didn't say that the simulation that H/H^ does of <H^> <H^> reaches a
halting state. THAT is your deceptive claim, that means nothing.

The Halting Problem asks what the Computation that the input is a
representation of does.

>
> Nothing that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does can possibly contradict this fact.
> It is like I am claiming to have a black dog and your rebuttal proves
> that I do not have a white cat.

But H^ applied to <H^> reaches H^.qn and HALTS. Do you deny that?

I didn't 'twist' your words. I might not be putting your statements
together in the order you try to present them, because you try to
DECEIVE by sequencing statements to allow you to try to hid the changing
meaning of your words.

>
>> You ADMIT that your H(<H^>,<H^>) says that H^(<H^>) is a non-halting
>> computation.
>>
>> You ADMIT that you 'Know' this to be a True Answer.
>>
>> This is contradictory, so something must be untrue.
>>
>> Thus, you are a deceiver, and likely actually self-deceived.
>>
>>
>
>

The fact that H^ applied to <H^> is admited to Halt should be self
evident that the right answer to H <H^> <H^> should be Halting.

Your insistance that a non-halting answer MUST be correct shows that
your mind can not hold on to the concept of actual truth.

You have an argument which seems to have convinced you that the wrong
answer is right, but the fact that you also accept the that the
computation actually does Halt should show you that you need to examine
what you have done, but instead, it seems you have gaslite yourself into
fighting any and all evidence to the contrary, distroying your ability
to think in any rational manner.

Peter, you are SICK. Your mind is broken. You have lost all sense of logic.

You have decieved yourself and are doomed to be stuck in your own lies
until you admit that you need to actually think this through.

On 10/17/2021 12:41 PM, olcott wrote:
<SNIP>
> Whenever anyone "knows" anything that is untrue then we can definitely
> conclude that their definition of "know" is necessarily incorrect.

So when you say you "know" what what knowledge is, we know (by any
definition) that you are incorrect, at least by your definition.

> Whenever anyone uses the term "know" to mean {falsely presume} we know
> that they are a deceiver, possibly including self-deception.

So we now know (by any definition including yours) that you are, in
addition to being wrong (see above), either a deceiver or in the lap of
self-deception.

This all reminds me once again of the Einstein quote you include at the
end of your messages that points directly at you as a "doubter of great
minds".

You keep confusing your role in these things with the hero when you are
actually the buffoon; Walter Middy with none of his charms. A dreamer
with you always getting the girl or the job or the patent or the awed
recognition of the masses as well as the intelligentsia. Son, it just
ain't gonna happen. You don't listen, you don't learn, you don't seem to
appreciate the help you have been offered.

I'd guess that if all the replies you've received in the last 3-4 years
were gathered and edited, a fine text book for a first course in logic,
theory of computation, and linguistics could result. It would be fun!
However my buffoon, not one complete sentences of it has penetrated your
mind and stuck. Your day dreams are so out of touch that we are only
left with the image of a baboon jumping up and down playing with feces
in its cage. It's not a good look for you.
--
Jeff Barnett

On 10/17/21 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>
> I will put it in simpler terms.
> The only way that we can know with 100% perfectly complete logical
> certainty that an expression of language is true is when its truth can
> be totally verified entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>
> This does provide the foundation of all analytical truth.

But the flaw is that not all analytical truths are knowable (in some
fields).

Math is built on logical definitions that allow for statements to exist
that we know must be either True of False, but that we are unable to
actually 'prove' by analytical proof which it is.

Or Knowledge requires Truth to exist, but Truth does NOT require
Knowledge to be available.

On 10/17/2021 3:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/17/21 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> I will put it in simpler terms.
>> The only way that we can know with 100% perfectly complete logical
>> certainty that an expression of language is true is when its truth can
>> be totally verified entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>
>> This does provide the foundation of all analytical truth.
>
> But the flaw is that not all analytical truths are knowable (in some
> fields).
>

Expressions of language that have unknown truth values are simply
excluded from the body of knowledge.

> Math is built on logical definitions that allow for statements to exist
> that we know must be either True of False, but that we are unable to
> actually 'prove' by analytical proof which it is.
>

Any expression of language that cannot be proven true is necessarily
untrue, yet possibly also not false. Some expressions of language are
simply not bearers of truth values.

> Or Knowledge requires Truth to exist, but Truth does NOT require
> Knowledge to be available.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 10/17/21 4:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2021 3:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/17/21 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> I will put it in simpler terms.
>>> The only way that we can know with 100% perfectly complete logical
>>> certainty that an expression of language is true is when its truth
>>> can be totally verified entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>>
>>> This does provide the foundation of all analytical truth.
>>
>> But the flaw is that not all analytical truths are knowable (in some
>> fields).
>>
>
> Expressions of language that have unknown truth values are simply
> excluded from the body of knowledge.

But may still be true. And it is also a fact that you might not know if
something can be in the body of knowledge.

>
>> Math is built on logical definitions that allow for statements to
>> exist that we know must be either True of False, but that we are
>> unable to actually 'prove' by analytical proof which it is.
>>
>
> Any expression of language that cannot be proven true is necessarily
> untrue, yet possibly also not false. Some expressions of language are
> simply not bearers of truth values.

WRONG. That statement was disproved a century ago. There are statements
which it is provable that they must be either True or False, but it is
impossible to actually prove if they are True or False.

One interesting problem with your position, is it turns out that if you
won't accept that a statement is a Truth Bearer unless it is provable,
then there exist statements that you can't tell if they ARE Truth
Bearers or not, as you can't prove if they are provable. And this
continues to infinity.

THis means that you really can't make a statement to be decided on until
you prove that it IS decidable, and you can't really ask if it is
decidable until your prove that its decidability is decidable, and so on.

This severely limits the power of a system of logic that refuses to
acknowledge the existance of truth values for statements that are not
provable.

You seem to be a century behind in the theories of knowledge, probably
because you refuse to study some of what has been done because you don't
'believe' they can be right. You have basically condemned yourself to
repeat the errors of the past, and don't have the excusses that they did
back then.

Yes, There ARE realms where you can use that sort of logic, but there
are also realms where it does not work. You just don't understand where
that line is and it bashes you in the head and makes you stupid.

On 10/17/21 4:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2021 3:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/17/21 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> I will put it in simpler terms.
>>> The only way that we can know with 100% perfectly complete logical
>>> certainty that an expression of language is true is when its truth
>>> can be totally verified entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>>
>>> This does provide the foundation of all analytical truth.
>>
>> But the flaw is that not all analytical truths are knowable (in some
>> fields).
>>
>
> Expressions of language that have unknown truth values are simply
> excluded from the body of knowledge.

They may be outside 'knowledge', but may still be statements of 'truth
value' in the language.

SOME bodies exclude the discussion of such items, but others do not.

Both are valid. Mathematics, for one, allows the discussion of
statements that might not be provable.

>
>> Math is built on logical definitions that allow for statements to
>> exist that we know must be either True of False, but that we are
>> unable to actually 'prove' by analytical proof which it is.
>>
>
> Any expression of language that cannot be proven true is necessarily
> untrue, yet possibly also not false. Some expressions of language are
> simply not bearers of truth values.

WRONG.

Let me add, can you PROVE it, if not, by your rules you can't make it.

Counter Example.

All Computation, for example, which might be expressed as a pair of a
Turing Machine and an input, will BY DEFINITION either Halt or not, so
the halt status of a Computation is a bearer of a truth value.

There DO exist computations for which we can not prove if they will be
able to complete in a finite amount of time or not.

>
>> Or Knowledge requires Truth to exist, but Truth does NOT require
>> Knowledge to be available.
>>
>
>

On 10/17/2021 2:01 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 10/17/2021 12:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>            <SNIP>
>> Whenever anyone "knows" anything that is untrue then we can definitely
>> conclude that their definition of "know" is necessarily incorrect.
>
> So when you say you "know" what what knowledge is, we know (by any
> definition) that you are incorrect, at least by your definition.
>
>> Whenever anyone uses the term "know" to mean {falsely presume} we know
>> that they are a deceiver, possibly including self-deception.
>
> So we now know (by any definition including yours) that you are, in
> addition to being wrong (see above), either a deceiver or in the lap of
> self-deception.
>
> This all reminds me once again of the Einstein quote you include at the
> end of your messages that points directly at you as a "doubter of great
> minds".
>
> You keep confusing your role in these things with the hero when you are
> actually the buffoon; Walter Middy with none of his charms. A dreamer
> with you always getting the girl or the job or the patent or the awed
> recognition of the masses as well as the intelligentsia. Son, it just
> ain't gonna happen. You don't listen, you don't learn, you don't seem to
> appreciate the help you have been offered.
>
> I'd guess that if all the replies you've received in the last 3-4 years
> were gathered and edited, a fine text book for a first course in logic,
> theory of computation, and linguistics could result. It would be fun!
> However my buffoon, not one complete sentences of it has penetrated your
> mind and stuck. Your day dreams are so out of touch that we are only
> left with the image of a baboon jumping up and down playing with feces
> in its cage. It's not a good look for you.
And one more thing: your only available path to fame and glory (the
world record for strange posts in a single newsgroup) is about to be
eclipsed by DV, your sometimes befriender. Crank up that old nonsense
engine and get crackin' or fame will once again allude you. N.B. DV does
not use copy and paste to generate volume like you do. Your old record
is GMO while his will be organic: Beaten on two fronts.
--
Jeff Barnett

On 10/17/2021 4:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 10/17/21 4:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2021 3:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/17/21 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I will put it in simpler terms.
>>>> The only way that we can know with 100% perfectly complete logical
>>>> certainty that an expression of language is true is when its truth
>>>> can be totally verified entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>
>>>> This does provide the foundation of all analytical truth.
>>>
>>> But the flaw is that not all analytical truths are knowable (in some
>>> fields).
>>>
>>
>> Expressions of language that have unknown truth values are simply
>> excluded from the body of knowledge.
>
> But may still be true.

That does not matter they do not count as truth or as knowledge until
after they have been proven true.

Only Wittgenstein understood this: (see page 6 for full quote)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

> And it is also a fact that you might not know if
> something can be in the body of knowledge.

That is very simple if it is true and no one knows it then it is not
knowledge.

>>
>>> Math is built on logical definitions that allow for statements to
>>> exist that we know must be either True of False, but that we are
>>> unable to actually 'prove' by analytical proof which it is.
>>>
>>
>> Any expression of language that cannot be proven true is necessarily
>> untrue, yet possibly also not false. Some expressions of language are
>> simply not bearers of truth values.
>
> WRONG. That statement was disproved a century ago.

This is a misconception based on defining truth and knowledge in an
incoherent way.

> There are statements
> which it is provable that they must be either True or False, but it is
> impossible to actually prove if they are True or False.
>

That is the same kind of crap that has nitwits believing that there was
election fraud when there was no evidence of election fraud.

When a large group of people have a psychotic break from reality on the
basis of Nazi style propaganda the one key thing that would point them
to the actual truth is the idea that no statement is true until after it
has been proven.

> One interesting problem with your position, is it turns out that if you
> won't accept that a statement is a Truth Bearer unless it is provable,
> then there exist statements that you can't tell if they ARE Truth
> Bearers or not, as you can't prove if they are provable. And this
> continues to infinity.

Yes this is correct. When we really don't know it can be quite horrific
in some cases for us to presume that we do know. With my system we have
a finite set of expressions of language that are confirmed to be
definitely true and an infinite set that are unconfirmed as true.

There are some things that are known to be true the rest are unknown to
be true with no emotional attachment to an opinion (belief) inbetween.

There is also a weight of evidence to be applied when we have incomplete
information. When there is no evidence that an expression of language is
true it is still considered possible thus carries negligible weight.

Whatever view objectively carries the most weight of evidence becomes
the current working hypothesis.

>
> THis means that you really can't make a statement to be decided on until
> you prove that it IS decidable, and you can't really ask if it is
> decidable until your prove that its decidability is decidable, and so on.
>

This whole overload of the term "decidable" is far too misleading. The
actual case is that the reason that we cannot decide between yes and no
is that the expression of langugae is simply not truth bearer.

What time is it (yes or no)? I can't decide (make up my mind.)

> This severely limits the power of a system of logic that refuses to
> acknowledge the existance of truth values for statements that are not
> provable.
>

Their truth values don't exist.
"This sentence is not true."
is indeed not true because it is not a truth bearer.

> You seem to be a century behind in the theories of knowledge, probably
> because you refuse to study some of what has been done because you don't
> 'believe' they can be right. You have basically condemned yourself to
> repeat the errors of the past, and don't have the excusses that they did
> back then.
>

I simply have a deeper insight because I studied these things from first
principles rather than even tentatively accept the preexisting framework
of misconceptions.

I have known since 1997 that if Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem and
the halting problem are correct then the basic notion of truth itself
must be broken. Tarski's Undefinability theorem (that directly applies
to the notion of truth itself) confirms this.

> Yes, There ARE realms where you can use that sort of logic, but there
> are also realms where it does not work. You just don't understand where
> that line is and it bashes you in the head and makes you stupid.

It works for the entire body of analytical knowledge: Expressions of
language that can be verified as completely true entirely based on their
meaning.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 10/17/2021 5:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/17/21 4:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2021 3:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/17/21 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I will put it in simpler terms.
>>>> The only way that we can know with 100% perfectly complete logical
>>>> certainty that an expression of language is true is when its truth
>>>> can be totally verified entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>
>>>> This does provide the foundation of all analytical truth.
>>>
>>> But the flaw is that not all analytical truths are knowable (in some
>>> fields).
>>>
>>
>> Expressions of language that have unknown truth values are simply
>> excluded from the body of knowledge.
>
> They may be outside 'knowledge', but may still be statements of 'truth
> value' in the language.
>
> SOME bodies exclude the discussion of such items, but others do not.
>
> Both are valid. Mathematics, for one, allows the discussion of
> statements that might not be provable.
>
>>
>>> Math is built on logical definitions that allow for statements to
>>> exist that we know must be either True of False, but that we are
>>> unable to actually 'prove' by analytical proof which it is.
>>>
>>
>> Any expression of language that cannot be proven true is necessarily
>> untrue, yet possibly also not false. Some expressions of language are
>> simply not bearers of truth values.
>
> WRONG.
>
> Let me add, can you PROVE it, if not, by your rules you can't make it.
>
> Counter Example.
>
> All Computation, for example, which might be expressed as a pair of a
> Turing Machine and an input, will BY DEFINITION either Halt or not, so
> the halt status of a Computation is a bearer of a truth value.
>

I went over and over this with Ben for many years. If we assume that the
finite string is a syntactically correct TM description P

then we know that when P is simulated on its input P a simulating halt
decider H(P,P) that this simulation will either reach its final state of
P (WHETHER OR NOT H ABORTS THIS SIMULATION) or not.

> There DO exist computations for which we can not prove if they will be
> able to complete in a finite amount of time or not.
>

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
If the simulated input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its
final state then when Ĥ.qx transitions to Ĥ.qn it is necessarily correct.

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

>>
>>> Or Knowledge requires Truth to exist, but Truth does NOT require
>>> Knowledge to be available.
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 10/18/2021 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2021 4:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/17/21 4:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2021 3:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/21 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:

>>>>> I will put it in simpler terms.
>>>>> The only way that we can know with 100% perfectly complete
>>>>> logical certainty that an expression of language is true is
>>>>> when its truth can be totally verified entirely on the basis
>>>>> of its meaning.
>>>>> This does provide the foundation of all analytical truth.
>>>>
>>>> But the flaw is that not all analytical truths are knowable
>>>> (in some fields).
>>>
>>> Expressions of language that have unknown truth values are
>>> simply excluded from the body of knowledge.
>>
>> But may still be true.
>
> That does not matter they do not count as truth or as
> knowledge until after they have been proven true.

A modest proposal:
Analytic truths _constrain_ reality (though it's true they
need not be about only reality).

'4 - 2 = 2' is an analytic truth.
It _constrains_ what the real answer can be to
| | Betty had four apples.
| Then she gave two of them to Bill.
| How many does she have now?

I think that this is why we call them "truths" instead of
"analytic symbol grab-bags".

But what is reality?
| | Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
| doesn't go away.
| ― Philip K. Dick, I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon

It seems to me that welding truth to knowledge misses the
point of truth, which is that, if we play our cards right,
we can expand knowledge further into truth. You suggest that
there is no "there" there to expand into.

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> If the simulated input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches its
> final state then when Ĥ.qx transitions to Ĥ.qn it is necessarily
> correct.

No. You've omitted the key phrase yet again:

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.

You have no excuse for removing it.

--
Ben.