Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

[mickthinks]

Knowledge is the set of expressions of language that we are aware of as true.

In my experience it is not only possible for us to be mistaken in our sense of our awareness of truth; it is, in fact, common.

So then, though one hypothesises that one's awareness of some knowledge claim is the awareness of its truth, that must always be an hypothesis.

[PeteOlcott]

Knowledge is the set of expressions of language that we are aware of as true.

In my experience it is not only possible for us to be mistaken in our sense of our awareness of truth; it is, in fact, common.

So then, though one hypothesises that one's awareness of some knowledge claim is the awareness of its truth, that must always be an hypothesis.

I have not provided the vetting process for dividing empirical truth from expressions
of language that are not true, yet this would be anchored in the correspondence theory
of truth. None-the-less knowledge really is no more than truth that one is aware of.
What truth itself is requires further elaboration.

[Age]

What makes the {integer five} a {number} and not a {plate of burned brownies trampled on the floor}?

The EXACT SAME 'thing' that I have been TRYING TO GET 'you' TO ANSWER.

Have people always been deceived and counting really goes like this 1,2,3,4, crushed brownies?

WHY do 'you' END UP PRESUMING and SAYING the MOST ILLOGICAL and OFF TOPIC COMMENTS in regards to what 'I' or "others" ACTUALLY SAY and MEAN?

Tautologies are mental constructs encoded in language that have the semantic property of Boolean true.

Do 'tautologies' exist WITHIN human beings AS WELL, or just WITHIN computers and/or computing ALONE?

Also, IS 'climate change' 'boolean true' OR 'boolean false'?

This is how and why some expressions of language are tautologies
Only by stipulating relations between finite strings do finite strings acquire semantic meaning otherwise they remain meaningless. All of these stipulated relations are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true.

Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... able_facts

If you continue to NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I ASK you, then I WILL just give up ASKING ANY more.

[PeteOlcott]

If you continue to NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I ASK you, then I WILL just give up ASKING ANY more.

I can't answer point-by-point because quoting cut out too many of the words that I said.

The key basis of all truth is that some otherwise totally meaningless finite strings
are assigned a semantic meaning that are stipulated to be true.



This is the correct answer to your question, yet may be too difficult to understand.
That it may be too difficult for you to understand does not indicate that it is not a
correct answer to your question. I have correctly answered your question many times
and each time you act like I simply ignored your question.

[Age]

I can't answer point-by-point because quoting cut out too many of the words that I said.

The key basis of all truth is that some otherwise totally meaningless finite strings
are assigned a semantic meaning that are stipulated to be true.



This is the correct answer to your question, yet may be too difficult to understand.
That it may be too difficult for you to understand does not indicate that it is not a
correct answer to your question. I have correctly answered your question many times
and each time you act like I simply ignored your question.

I do NOT just 'act' like you have.

When you have I have just POINTED this OUT.

By the way the above here is also NOT the correct answer to my question.

[PeteOlcott]

What are you on about here?

What makes a 'tautology' a 'tautology' if NOT an 'observer'?

What makes the {integer five} a {number} and not a {plate of burned brownies trampled on the floor}?

The EXACT SAME 'thing' that I have been TRYING TO GET 'you' TO ANSWER.

Tautologies are mental constructs encoded in language that have the semantic property of Boolean true.

Do 'tautologies' exist WITHIN human beings AS WELL, or just WITHIN computers and/or computing ALONE?

Also, IS 'climate change' 'boolean true' OR 'boolean false'?

That we call {a dog} "a dog" and not 一只狗 is purely arbitrary.
Likewise the {integer five} can be called 整数五
The semantic meanings have simply been assigned to finite strings.

In the BASIC programming language: 100 let x = 10
x has the value of 10 because we assigned the value of 10 to x.

It doesn't really require an observer we could do the same thing with
UTF-8 text strings inside a computer. A computer can have the same
understanding of the meaning of words that people have as long as
we provide the computer all of the details of the meaning of words
that we have.

A knowledge ontology is the conventional way that this is done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_ ... r_science)

Tautologies are abstract models of the world that only exist in natural or
artificial minds. Animals might have their own tautologies where for example
{wolf} means {run away fast}

Climate change is Boolean true
*Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts*
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... able_facts

[Age]

What makes the {integer five} a {number} and not a {plate of burned brownies trampled on the floor}?

The EXACT SAME 'thing' that I have been TRYING TO GET 'you' TO ANSWER.

Tautologies are mental constructs encoded in language that have the semantic property of Boolean true.

Do 'tautologies' exist WITHIN human beings AS WELL, or just WITHIN computers and/or computing ALONE?

Also, IS 'climate change' 'boolean true' OR 'boolean false'?

That we call {a dog} "a dog" and not 一只狗 is purely arbitrary.
Likewise the {integer five} can be called 整数五
The semantic meanings have simply been assigned to finite strings.

In the BASIC programming language: 100 let x = 10
x has the value of 10 because we assigned the value of 10 to x.

SO, 'WHAT was 'it', EXACTLY, which lead to X having the value of 10.

IF, and WHEN, you WORK 'that' OUT, then you WILL UNDERSTAND 'WHAT' 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which I have been ALLUDING TO here

It doesn't really require an observer we could do the same thing with
UTF-8 text strings inside a computer. A computer can have the same
understanding of the meaning of words that people have as long as
we provide the computer all of the details of the meaning of words
that we have.

So what?

HOW did 'you' AND "others" ARRIVE AT 'those meanings'?

A knowledge ontology is the conventional way that this is done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_ ... r_science)

Tautologies are abstract models of the world that only exist in natural or
artificial minds. Animals might have their own tautologies where for example
{wolf} means {run away fast}

Climate change is Boolean true
*Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts*
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... able_facts

[PeteOlcott]

SO, 'WHAT was 'it', EXACTLY, which lead to X having the value of 10.

It is a purely arbitrary assignment of meaning to otherwise totally
meaningless finite strings that define the English language.

[Age]

SO, 'WHAT was 'it', EXACTLY, which lead to X having the value of 10.

It is a purely arbitrary assignment of meaning to otherwise totally
meaningless finite strings that define the English language.

Now, by WHO, WHAT, and/or HOW is 'meaning' assigned 'purely arbitrarily', EXACTLY?

Or, by what 'method' is 'purely arbitrary assignment of meanings' reached, EXACTLY?

WORK OUT this one word ANSWER, THEN you WILL PROGRESS and MOVE FORWARD here.

[promethean75]

what would qualify as an instance of something useful that could be done with your theories, Olcott? is there some practical application for your theories and revisions beyond the purely abstract discussion of it with skepdick who's gonna disagree with everything out of principle anyway? i mean like computer science or something. if logicians and mathematicians agreed with u and u went down in Wikipedia history, how will the world be awesomer? 

i feel like your field is gonna be AI dude. you're gonna create algorithmic code that'll make AIs reach a level of beta-consciousness that isn't possible with our current Turing-Godel standard of quantum coding. u very well may be the one to bridge the distance between man and machine, Olcott.

[PeteOlcott]

SO, 'WHAT was 'it', EXACTLY, which lead to X having the value of 10.

It is a purely arbitrary assignment of meaning to otherwise totally
meaningless finite strings that define the English language.

Now, by WHO, WHAT, and/or HOW is 'meaning' assigned 'purely arbitrarily', EXACTLY?

Or, by what 'method' is 'purely arbitrary assignment of meanings' reached, EXACTLY?

WORK OUT this one word ANSWER, THEN you WILL PROGRESS and MOVE FORWARD here.

When you learned the English language did you disagree with the meaning of every word?

[PeteOlcott]

what would qualify as an instance of something useful that could be done with your theories, Olcott? is there some practical application for your theories and revisions beyond the purely abstract discussion of it with skepdick who's gonna disagree with everything out of principle anyway? i mean like computer science or something. if logicians and mathematicians agreed with u and u went down in Wikipedia history, how will the world be awesomer? 

i feel like your field is gonna be AI dude. you're gonna create algorithmic code that'll make AIs reach a level of beta-consciousness that isn't possible with our current Turing-Godel standard of quantum coding. u very well may be the one to bridge the distance between man and machine, Olcott.

The key idea is that when analytical truth (expressions of language that can be verified
as completely true entirely on the basis of their meaning) has been defined with the
proper foundation, then it becomes totally computable.

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

Only by stipulating relations between finite strings do finite strings acquire semantic meaning otherwise they remain utterly meaningless. All of these stipulated relations are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true. This makes these finite strings tautologies that we know must be true.

(b) Finite strings are semantically deduced from the above set (sound deductive inference)

Then we have an objective mathematical basis to divide true from untrue and we
can explicitly point to the what are essentially math errors that derive untruth.

We can know that severe climate change really is caused by humans, that there
really was no election fraud in the 2020 election that could have possibly changed
the outcome ... All computed mathematically.

When true(L,x) is mathematically formalized chat bots can take on each and
every social media poster and decimate their disinformation every which way
before it has a chance to start.

This same basic architecture does abolish the notion of incompleteness, not
provable in the system simply mean untrue in the system. It also eliminates
Tarski undefinability because it it smart enough to recognize Tarski's liar
paradox basis and simply reject it as untrue.

[Age]

It is a purely arbitrary assignment of meaning to otherwise totally
meaningless finite strings that define the English language.

Now, by WHO, WHAT, and/or HOW is 'meaning' assigned 'purely arbitrarily', EXACTLY?

Or, by what 'method' is 'purely arbitrary assignment of meanings' reached, EXACTLY?

WORK OUT this one word ANSWER, THEN you WILL PROGRESS and MOVE FORWARD here.

When you learned the English language did you disagree with the meaning of every word?

WHEN does one STOP LEARNING ANY language?

In other words, WHEN has one LEARNED A language?

[Age]

what would qualify as an instance of something useful that could be done with your theories, Olcott? is there some practical application for your theories and revisions beyond the purely abstract discussion of it with skepdick who's gonna disagree with everything out of principle anyway? i mean like computer science or something. if logicians and mathematicians agreed with u and u went down in Wikipedia history, how will the world be awesomer? 

i feel like your field is gonna be AI dude. you're gonna create algorithmic code that'll make AIs reach a level of beta-consciousness that isn't possible with our current Turing-Godel standard of quantum coding. u very well may be the one to bridge the distance between man and machine, Olcott.

The key idea is that when analytical truth (expressions of language that can be verified
as completely true entirely on the basis of their meaning) has been defined with the
proper foundation, then it becomes totally computable.

But WHAT IS the 'proper foundation, EXACTLY?

In other words what does ALL of 'this' come down TO, EXACTLY?

WORK OUT and UNDERSTAND THIS ANSWER, THEN MORE IS REVEALED

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.

AND, the so-called 'basic architecture' IS much SIMPLER and EASIER, and thus MORE BASIC than what you think or BELIEVE here.

Only by stipulating relations between finite strings do finite strings acquire semantic meaning otherwise they remain utterly meaningless. All of these stipulated relations are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true. This makes these finite strings tautologies that we know must be true.

(b) Finite strings are semantically deduced from the above set (sound deductive inference)

Then we have an objective mathematical basis to divide true from untrue

YET here you ARE PROVING True that 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written have NOT YET COME-TO- KNOW what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, from what IS Untrue

and we
can explicitly point to the what are essentially math errors that derive untruth.

We can know that severe climate change really is caused by humans, that there
really was no election fraud in the 2020 election that could have possibly changed
the outcome ... All computed mathematically.

But HOW do you, supposedly, PERSONALLY KNOW these 'things' to be true?

For example, people on the OPPOSING "side" if your apparent "side" would say that they KNOW that the OPPOSITE is true

When true(L,x) is mathematically formalized chat bots can take on each and
every social media poster and decimate their disinformation every which way
before it has a chance to start.

But so-called 'chat bots' are designed, programmed, and created BY 'you', human beings. So, 'chat bots' end up LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' from a particular perspective. Now, obviously in the days when this is being, 'you', adult human beings, do NIT YET even KNOW to FIND the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things', so if the CREATORS do NIT YET KNOW, then HOW could they create some OTHER 'thing' HOW TO KNOW?

This same basic architecture does abolish the notion of incompleteness, not
provable in the system simply mean untrue in the system. It also eliminates
Tarski undefinability because it it smart enough to recognize Tarski's liar
paradox basis and simply reject it as untrue.

But NOT if the creator or programmer crests or programs 'it' to do OTHER 'things'.

[PeteOlcott]

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.