Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

[Skepdick]

In other words no one else agrees that there is such a thing as a correct model
of the world...

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

[PeteOlcott]

By model of the world I am referring to all of the relationships between finite
strings of natural or formal language that specify relationships between other
finite strings in the same language that are stipulated to be certainly true.
<IsTypeOf>("cats", "animals") formalizes {Cats are animals}.

To reason about the effectiveness of the system that I propose we hypothesize
that a knowledge ontology is fully populated with all of these formalized relations
between finite strings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_ ... r_science)

There are always a corresponding pair of knowledge ontologies:
(a) General knowledge
(b) Context specific knowledge

[Age]

The basic architecture for such a system is this:
(a) Finite strings are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true.

you appear to KEEP FORGETTING that 'this' here is in relation to, or relative to, you ALONE.

In other words no one else agrees that there is such a thing as a correct model
of the world that defines the meaning of expressions of language in terms of
their relation within this model?

If the relation that {cat's are animals} is only relative to me alone that would
entail that no one agrees that {cat's are animals} is true.

WHY did you even begin to ASSUME here exactly NOT what I was saying and MEANING?

[PeteOlcott]

you appear to KEEP FORGETTING that 'this' here is in relation to, or relative to, you ALONE.

In other words no one else agrees that there is such a thing as a correct model
of the world that defines the meaning of expressions of language in terms of
their relation within this model?

If the relation that {cat's are animals} is only relative to me alone that would
entail that no one agrees that {cat's are animals} is true.

WHY did you even begin to ASSUME here exactly NOT what I was saying and MEANING?

If I am the only living being in the universe then the fact that dogs are animals
and not ten story office buildings is still not relative to me alone, it is stipulated
by the set of properties that {dogs}, {animals} and {story office buildings} have.

Personal preferences are relative to the individual, objective facts stand alone
independently.

[Age]

In other words no one else agrees that there is such a thing as a correct model
of the world that defines the meaning of expressions of language in terms of
their relation within this model?

If the relation that {cat's are animals} is only relative to me alone that would
entail that no one agrees that {cat's are animals} is true.

WHY did you even begin to ASSUME here exactly NOT what I was saying and MEANING?

If I am the only living being in the universe then the fact that dogs are animals
and not ten story office buildings is still not relative to me alone, it is stipulated
by the set of properties that {dogs}, {animals} and {story office buildings} have.

you appear to have completely MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD the ACTUAL QUESTION, which I posed and ASKED you here

Personal preferences are relative to the individual, objective facts stand alone
independently.

And what is 'it', EXACTLY, which MAKES A 'fact', or AN 'objective fact', what they are, EXACTLY?

IF you come to FINDING and REALIZING the Right and Correct answer, THEN we can proceed and move along here.

[PeteOlcott]

And what is 'it', EXACTLY, which MAKES A 'fact', or AN 'objective fact', what they are, EXACTLY?

IF you come to FINDING and REALIZING the Right and Correct answer, THEN we can proceed and move along here.

The fact that "cats" <are> "animals" because the notion of "cat" <inherits> some of its
<properties> from the notion of "animal".
Chinese uses entirely different finite strings to encode these exact same ideas.

Humans are taught that otherwise totally meaningless finite strings are used
to encode abstract ideas representing things in the world. This defines a
mutually agreed upon standard for the encoding and decoding within the
communication process.

[Age]

And what is 'it', EXACTLY, which MAKES A 'fact', or AN 'objective fact', what they are, EXACTLY?

IF you come to FINDING and REALIZING the Right and Correct answer, THEN we can proceed and move along here.

The fact that "cats" <are> "animals" because the notion of "cat" <inherits> some of its
<properties> from the notion of "animal".
Chinese uses entirely different finite strings to encode these exact same ideas.

Humans are taught that otherwise totally meaningless finite strings are used
to encode abstract ideas representing things in the world. This defines a
mutually agreed upon standard for the encoding and decoding within the
communication process.

Once again, if, and when, you come to FINDING the ACTUAL ANSWER to the QUESTION, THEN we can move along here

[PeteOlcott]

And what is 'it', EXACTLY, which MAKES A 'fact', or AN 'objective fact', what they are, EXACTLY?

IF you come to FINDING and REALIZING the Right and Correct answer, THEN we can proceed and move along here.

The fact that "cats" <are> "animals" because the notion of "cat" <inherits> some of its
<properties> from the notion of "animal".
Chinese uses entirely different finite strings to encode these exact same ideas.

Humans are taught that otherwise totally meaningless finite strings are used
to encode abstract ideas representing things in the world. This defines a
mutually agreed upon standard for the encoding and decoding within the
communication process.

Once again, if, and when, you come to FINDING the ACTUAL ANSWER to the QUESTION, THEN we can move along here

The actual answer to the question has been provided and seems too difficult
for you to understand. It is a very difficult answer.

I translated your abstract question:

"And what is 'it', EXACTLY, which MAKES A 'fact', or AN
'objective fact', what they are, EXACTLY?"

into this concrete form:
"How do we know that horses are not ten story office buildings?"

The nature of {horses} and the nature of {ten story office buildings}
encoded within the conventions of the English language is what
makes {horses are not ten story office buildings} an objective fact.

Maybe you could word your question differently?

[Skepdick]

The nature of {horses}

What is the nature of horses?

[Age]

The fact that "cats" <are> "animals" because the notion of "cat" <inherits> some of its
<properties> from the notion of "animal".
Chinese uses entirely different finite strings to encode these exact same ideas.

Humans are taught that otherwise totally meaningless finite strings are used
to encode abstract ideas representing things in the world. This defines a
mutually agreed upon standard for the encoding and decoding within the
communication process.

Once again, if, and when, you come to FINDING the ACTUAL ANSWER to the QUESTION, THEN we can move along here

The actual answer to the question has been provided and seems too difficult
for you to understand. It is a very difficult answer.

BUT the ANSWER IS A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER, and one that IS VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND AS WELL.

After all it is ONLY A ONE WORD ANSWER.

Which brings us BACK to the WHOLE POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING HERE.

What MAKES 'truth' THE 'truth'.

FIND and UNDERSTAND THIS ANSWER,THEN we can move along, AND PROGRESS here.

I translated your abstract question:

"And what is 'it', EXACTLY, which MAKES A 'fact', or AN
'objective fact', what they are, EXACTLY?"

into this concrete form:
"How do we know that horses are not ten story office buildings?"

you are just MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, which by the way ARE Wrong anyway, and just making COMPLEX what IS ESSENTIALLY VERY SIMPLE.

The nature of {horses} and the nature of {ten story office buildings}
encoded within the conventions of the English language is what
makes {horses are not ten story office buildings} an objective fact.

HOW is the so-called 'nature of' 'things', which includes 'horses' and 'ten storey buildings' obviously, KNOWN, ENCODED and ABLE TO BE ASCERTAINED, FROM WITHIN in language, itself, EXACTLY?

ANSWER this QUESTION Correctly, then the QUICKER we can move along here.

Maybe you could word your question differently?

YES MAYBE I COULD. BUT I do NOT YET KNOW HOW to make the QUESTION MORE SIMPLER FOR you.

Also maybe you could do some 'thing', which I have suggested MANY times to do throughout this forum, which if you did DO would speed 'things' up here EXPONENTIALLY.

[PeteOlcott]

HOW is the so-called 'nature of' 'things', which includes 'horses' and 'ten storey buildings' obviously, KNOWN, ENCODED and ABLE TO BE ASCERTAINED, FROM WITHIN in language, itself, EXACTLY?

ANSWER this QUESTION Correctly, then the QUICKER we can move along here.

It seems to me that you may simply "not believe in" tautologies.

While people were on their last five minutes of life dying
from Covid-19 they continued to believe it was all a hoax.

[Age]

HOW is the so-called 'nature of' 'things', which includes 'horses' and 'ten storey buildings' obviously, KNOWN, ENCODED and ABLE TO BE ASCERTAINED, FROM WITHIN in language, itself, EXACTLY?

ANSWER this QUESTION Correctly, then the QUICKER we can move along here.

It seems to me that you may simply "not believe in" tautologies.

Absolutely ANY 'thing' could seem to be the case to you, BUT UNTIL you OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARIFICATION you will NEVER KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

While people were on their last five minutes of life dying
from Covid-19 they continued to believe it was all a hoax.

So what?

'This' has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with absolutely ANY 'thing' that I have been SAYING and ASKING here.

ONCE MORE I will suggest that if one STOPS MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and STARTS JUST ANSWERING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, OPENLY and Honestly, then we can MOVE ALONG and PROGRESS here

[PeteOlcott]

HOW is the so-called 'nature of' 'things', which includes 'horses' and 'ten storey buildings' obviously, KNOWN, ENCODED and ABLE TO BE ASCERTAINED, FROM WITHIN in language, itself, EXACTLY?

ANSWER this QUESTION Correctly, then the QUICKER we can move along here.

It seems to me that you may simply "not believe in" tautologies.

Absolutely ANY 'thing' could seem to be the case to you, BUT UNTIL you OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARIFICATION you will NEVER KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

ONCE MORE I will suggest that if one STOPS MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and STARTS JUST ANSWERING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, OPENLY and Honestly, then we can MOVE ALONG and PROGRESS here

I am starting to believe that it is possible that you are only playing head games.
In this case the subject matter is so difficult that it is much more likely that you
simply don't understand that I already answered your question.

If you can answer the question:
How do you know that you left foot is not your right hand?
Then by whatever process you determined that is the same way
that we know that horses are not ten story office buildings.

If you are just playing head games you will find some way to dodge
my question, otherwise you will be able to answer your own question.

A good Troll answer would be:
"I have no idea that my left foot is not my right hand".

[Age]

It seems to me that you may simply "not believe in" tautologies.

Absolutely ANY 'thing' could seem to be the case to you, BUT UNTIL you OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARIFICATION you will NEVER KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

ONCE MORE I will suggest that if one STOPS MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and STARTS JUST ANSWERING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, OPENLY and Honestly, then we can MOVE ALONG and PROGRESS here

I am starting to believe that it is possible that you are only playing head games.
In this case the subject matter is so difficult that it is much more likely that you
simply don't understand that I already answered your question.

If you can answer the question:
How do you know that you left foot is not your right hand?
Then by whatever process you determined that is the same way
that we know that horses are not ten story office buildings.

OKAY.

Now, ONCE AGAIN, what IS that 'process', EXACTLY?

WORK that OUT, THEN we CAN PROCEED.

If you are just playing head games you will find some way to dodge
my question, otherwise you will be able to answer your own question.

I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER.

We are just WAITING, PATIENTLY, to SEE IF you WILL arrive at the SAME ANSWER.

A good Troll answer would be:
"I have no idea that my left foot is not my right hand".

Okay.

If this is what you think or BELIEVE, then so be it.

[PeteOlcott]

Absolutely ANY 'thing' could seem to be the case to you, BUT UNTIL you OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARIFICATION you will NEVER KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

ONCE MORE I will suggest that if one STOPS MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and STARTS JUST ANSWERING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, OPENLY and Honestly, then we can MOVE ALONG and PROGRESS here

I am starting to believe that it is possible that you are only playing head games.
In this case the subject matter is so difficult that it is much more likely that you
simply don't understand that I already answered your question.

If you can answer the question:
How do you know that you left foot is not your right hand?
Then by whatever process you determined that is the same way
that we know that horses are not ten story office buildings.

OKAY.

Now, ONCE AGAIN, what IS that 'process', EXACTLY?

WORK that OUT, THEN we CAN PROCEED.

If you are just playing head games you will find some way to dodge
my question, otherwise you will be able to answer your own question.

I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER.

We are just WAITING, PATIENTLY, to SEE IF you WILL arrive at the SAME ANSWER.

A good Troll answer would be:
"I have no idea that my left foot is not my right hand".

Okay.

If this is what you think or BELIEVE, then so be it.

Humans simply learned the conventions language required to encode
the relations between ideas within the correct abstract model of the world.

A system anchored in these encoded relations and semantic deductions that
can be made from them overcomes The Tarski Undefinability Theorem.
Thus provides the basis for a universal Truth predicate True(L,x).