On 10/18/21 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.

Says WHO?

Some day you will meet the ultimate truth, and will have to explain why
you persisted in promoting untruths.

>
> 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.

But still Truth.

You still don't understand the limit that you are boxing yourself into.

If you only allow your

>
>>>
>>>> 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.

WRONG.

>
>> 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.

STRAWMAN.

Just because

>
> 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.

If you only believe in what is 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.

But if you only allow yourself to post a question that you KNOW can be
proven, then you can only post the question if you KNOW it can be
proven, but you can only ask if you can KNOW it can be proven if you
KNOW That it CAN be know if it can be proven.

Taken to the limot, this means you can't ask a question about anything
unless you actually KNOW the answer, or have first PROVED (without
asking about it) that it is provable.

>
> 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.

How do you propose a proper Hypothesis, if you don't know that there IS
an answer, by your definition, that isn't a proper question.

And neither is the question about it being a proper question. etc.

>
>>
>> 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.

And what is non-Truth Bearing about does a given machine M applied to
input w being a Halting Computation.

There ARE machines for which we can not prove if the answer is Yes or
No, but we do know that in fact, it must be one or the other of the answers.

YOUR language fails to handle this case.

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

STRAWMAN.

>
>> 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.

STRAWMAN.

You like to statements which actually are not Truth Bearers to try to
discredit the question that ARE Truth Bearers, but are unanswerable.

>
>> 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.

And thus dopn't understand the basic principles that things are actually
based on.

>
> 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.

They show that YOUR concept of Truth is broken. YES.

You don't understand the REAL nature of Truth.

>
>> 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.
>

It doesn't work for the analytical field of Mathematical (and other
similar fields).

Maybe you want to say that all of mathematics is illogical in your
'truth system', and if you want to say that, it is fine, but that means
that you can't then work in those systems to try and show things,
because you just don't understand that ground rules of those system.

All Truth is Provable is incompatible with the fullness of Mathematics.

That was shown a century ago, you can chose to keep to "All Truth is
Provable", but then you bar yourself from being able to discuss the
majority of mathematics that is based on definitions of Truth that is
different for that.

You are welcome to try to work on the parts of Mathematics that are
compatible with that definition, but that excludes Computation Theory.

On 10/18/21 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

WRONG. UNSOUND LOGIC.

FAIL.

Try to ACTUAL prove it. I have pointed out MANY errors in your arguement
which you have stated you haven't read, therefore YOU have failed at
YOUR responsibility of proof.

>
>> 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.

WRONG.

>
> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> >

You fail to prove your claims, in a large part, because you don't really
understand what you claim. Your refer to claissical proofs, and say you
have counted them, when you have shown that you don't even understand
that language that they are written in.

As you have said, the mean of the words is important. Until you can show
that you actually KNOW the meaning of the words, as used by the orignal
proofs that you are claiming to have countered.

Important note, you claim to be using 'First Principles', one big
limitation of 'First Principles' is that if you are working on what
someone else has said, the prerequisite to applying a First Principle
approach is to actually KNOW what the principles THAT PERSON was using,
you can NOT easily just 'discover' this by independent research, that
tends to end up with your definitions differing from what you are trying
to apply it to, and thus not really applicable.

Until you really understand what a Computation is, and how Turing
Machine actually work nothing you say is going to make any sense.

Your 'claim' that code 'x' is the equivalence to Turing Machine 'y' is
meaningless when you have made it clear that you don't really understand
what a Turing Machine is, or what a Computation is (which is the basic
theory behind Turing Machines).

That is like a man blind from birth saying he know the real difference
between scarlet and crimson, it isn't in his realm of understanding.

You have blinded yourself to this area of Theory because you refuse to
comprehend the basic aspects of the field. I think you are unable to
understand things that are this abstract, as your mindset seem to be
stuck in things that are concrete.

On 10/18/21 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.

Let's put you to the test then.

PROVE that statement.

Note, you need to PROVE that your 'definition' is actually the correct
one, you can't just assume it. You have 'assumed' a meaning for the word
'Truth', which isn't allowed by the plain meaning of your statement as
you present it.

If you can't actually PROVE your statement, then by your own statement,
you can not count it as being 'true'.

This is the fundamental problem with this statement, it needs to take
itself as an unproven (and unprovable) truth, and thus actual disproves
itself.

The statement is NOT consistent with itself.