Conceptual Truth can be understood as math

[Eodnhoj7]

I applaud your effort suggesting an excellent way for me to make my ideas perfectly concrete.
Your suggestion has spawned my creative process for replicating the functionality of Prolog as
applied to higher order logic defined entirely as stipulated relations between finite strings.

I showed how to define axioms in my prior reply to this message. By using the syntax of Prolog
I can define Facts (axioms) and Rules (rules of inference) as stipulated relations between
finite strings. I have not yet figured out how to adapt this syntax to specify higher order logic.

Since Prolog already defines FOL as stipulated relations between finite strings, the idea that
formal systems can be defined this way is already fully elaborated for FOL in Prolog.

Everything you have said above boils down to expressive power.

What I am warning you against is the Turing tarpit.

Beware of the Turing tar-pit in which everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy.

In theory, everything you can do in C++ or Prolog - you can do in Brainfuck also.
The reason WHY you don't is very, very important. Human usability.

A language with rich vocabulary is very concise.
A language with poor vocabulary is very verbose.

A programming language like Mathematica has an exceptional vocabulary.
You can express incredibly complex ideas from broad domains of knowledge in a just a few lines of code.
A programming language like Brain fuck is the exact opposite of that.

Both Mathematica and Brainfuck are Turing-complete.

This exact property (expressivity) applies to logic also. FOL is atrocious! There is a reason Prolog is dead.
Worse - you are trying to retro-fit high-order logic on top of FOL. You are doing it backwards! Why?

Just start with a language that has been designed as a high-order logic from the start.

I urge you, advise you and encourage you to learn a high-level programming language. Start at the highest level of abstraction you can work your way to.

Python, Ruby, TypeScript, Julia - it doesn't matter. Just pick any language that uses dynamic typing!
Something that does not require the rigour and strictness of static typing like C++
Something that is almost as natural, expressive as intuitive as speaking English!

You are so used to having type safety in your programming languages that you are trying to shoehorn human knowledge into a strongly normalising type-safe system.

It's perfectionism at its worst. It's unnecessary. It's pure masochism. It's outright inhumane.

You remind me of me in my 20s. Trying to adapt the world to my brilliant design, rather than adapting my design to the world.

Like I said, C++ is expressive enough to create a fully functional human mind.
I am 64 and have two software engineering patents:
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/peter-l-olcott

Fallacy of authority, authority in one aspect of reality does not translate to authority in another. Second authority alone is not the be all end all of truth.

[PeteOlcott]

Everything you have said above boils down to expressive power.

What I am warning you against is the Turing tarpit.

Beware of the Turing tar-pit in which everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy.

In theory, everything you can do in C++ or Prolog - you can do in Brainfuck also.
The reason WHY you don't is very, very important. Human usability.

A language with rich vocabulary is very concise.
A language with poor vocabulary is very verbose.

A programming language like Mathematica has an exceptional vocabulary.
You can express incredibly complex ideas from broad domains of knowledge in a just a few lines of code.
A programming language like Brain fuck is the exact opposite of that.

Both Mathematica and Brainfuck are Turing-complete.

This exact property (expressivity) applies to logic also. FOL is atrocious! There is a reason Prolog is dead.
Worse - you are trying to retro-fit high-order logic on top of FOL. You are doing it backwards! Why?

Just start with a language that has been designed as a high-order logic from the start.

I urge you, advise you and encourage you to learn a high-level programming language. Start at the highest level of abstraction you can work your way to.

Python, Ruby, TypeScript, Julia - it doesn't matter. Just pick any language that uses dynamic typing!
Something that does not require the rigour and strictness of static typing like C++
Something that is almost as natural, expressive as intuitive as speaking English!

You are so used to having type safety in your programming languages that you are trying to shoehorn human knowledge into a strongly normalising type-safe system.

It's perfectionism at its worst. It's unnecessary. It's pure masochism. It's outright inhumane.

You remind me of me in my 20s. Trying to adapt the world to my brilliant design, rather than adapting my design to the world.

Like I said, C++ is expressive enough to create a fully functional human mind.
I am 64 and have two software engineering patents:
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/peter-l-olcott

Fallacy of authority, authority in one aspect of reality does not translate to authority in another. Second authority alone is not the be all end all of truth.

It is a correct refutation of [you are a clueless wonder that does not know jack shit].

[wtf]

It is a correct refutation of [you are a clueless wonder that does not know jack shit].

Pete's losing it.

[Eodnhoj7]

Like I said, C++ is expressive enough to create a fully functional human mind.
I am 64 and have two software engineering patents:
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/peter-l-olcott

Fallacy of authority, authority in one aspect of reality does not translate to authority in another. Second authority alone is not the be all end all of truth.

It is a correct refutation of [you are a clueless wonder that does not know jack shit].

Assumption. What you have are patents... they give parents to back scrubbing devices and speciality toenail files as well.

Your arguments contradict themselves by there own logic...and I think even you know this deep down. It is very horrifying to put so much effort into something....only for it not to pay off. Very dark and empty feeling...very sad.

But....whatever. You cannot have a formal system which defines everything when core undefined assumptions are its premises.

Go ahead say it...."you...yu... yyu... you are wron..wron...wrong."

I think your responses would be more fitting and believable if you stuttered through them.

[Eodnhoj7]

It is a correct refutation of [you are a clueless wonder that does not know jack shit].

Pete's losing it.

Wtf...

Not yet, not yet.

I'll break him mentally, and throw his ideas in a ditch.

Why? Boredom. Just another martyr for another cause of making the world a better place even though noone can agree on what it means thus the martyr loop continues.

There are just way to many genius' and heroes out there to count, someone should start tagging them in the ears like cattle. They all are the same. Create a problem, cut apart and restich different parts of reality, ta-da, solution...

[Skepdick]

Could not possibly, since programs do syntax, not meaning.

This is true for all symbolic expression in general. All language.

It is the intent behind language that it ought to capture meaning. It fails to do that and it leaves us with the syntax-semantics dualism.
As far as all dualisms go it's the same one as mathematics-metamathematics. The same dualism as code and data. Form and function. Behaviourism and structuralism. It's the dualism born by reasoning from inside a system and from outside a system.

When it comes to formal semantics Homoiconicity is an attempt to eliminate the syntax-semantics distinction.
Code is data - data is code. A language(mind?) that can interpret itself knows exactly what its intended meaning is.

But perhaps my key point - any "mind" that is written in C++ cannot be functionally equivalent to a human mind because it will lack two key properties of human minds. Reflection and self-modification.

C++ is not homoiconic. Human minds are.

[Skepdick]

Like I said, C++ is expressive enough to create a fully functional human mind.

And you have fallen into the tarpit.
I am sorry. I should have made the warning more explicit.

C++ is not good enough. It's a static language. It has non-existent reflective and meta-programming functionality. It is way too rigid.

Any changes to the code structure can only be done at compile time. If it requires recompilation then it cannot be a "fully functional human mind", and without the ability to reflect and self-modify at run-time you can never implement any self-adaptive behaviour.

Minds don't have maintenance windows for software upgrades.

Learn a dynamic language.
Understand Meta-circular evaluation

[PeteOlcott]

Fallacy of authority, authority in one aspect of reality does not translate to authority in another. Second authority alone is not the be all end all of truth.

It is a correct refutation of [you are a clueless wonder that does not know jack shit].

Assumption. What you have are patents... they give parents to back scrubbing devices and speciality toenail files as well.

https://patents.justia.com/inventor/peter-l-olcott
That is a quite stupid thing to say. You can see that they are software engineering patents.

[PeteOlcott]

So fact as an axiom is determined by an analytic sentence,
this analytic sentence is true based upon the meaning of its words,
The meaning of words, however, require a connection to empirical reality.

That is the problem, your premises are just randomly cut portions of reality glued to together with scotch tape and glitter until some bastardized interpretation is produced...throw in a "ta-da" and a pat on the back and that sums up your system.

It's just made up. You cannot define reality without relying on a continuum, and formal system that is not subject to change cannot continue.

(1) You are getting the analytic versus synthetic distinction incorrectly.
(2) The truth teller paradox is not Boolean.

[PeteOlcott]

It is a correct refutation of [you are a clueless wonder that does not know jack shit].

Pete's losing it.

Wtf...

Not yet, not yet.

I'll break him mentally, and throw his ideas in a ditch.

That is something that a nitwit would say.

[PeteOlcott]

Could not possibly, since programs do syntax, not meaning.

This is how syntax does meaning:
http://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulat ... p_1952.pdf

Here is a program that already does that:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6009 ... s-to-work/

[PeteOlcott]

Like I said, C++ is expressive enough to create a fully functional human mind.

And you have fallen into the tarpit.
I am sorry. I should have made the warning more explicit.

C++ is not good enough. It's a static language. It has non-existent reflective and meta-programming functionality. It is way too rigid.

You fail to understand that C++ could create a language that does not have C++ limitations.

[PeteOlcott]

Fallacy of authority, authority in one aspect of reality does not translate to authority in another. Second authority alone is not the be all end all of truth.

It is a correct refutation of [you are a clueless wonder that does not know jack shit].

Your arguments contradict themselves by there own logic...

But....whatever. You cannot have a formal system which defines everything when core undefined assumptions are its premises.

You can't point to a contradiction because there are none.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a premise and an axiom.

[Skepdick]

You fail to understand that C++ could create a language that does not have C++ limitations.

You fail to understand that I understand that. Those languages already exist.

It's precisely why I am suggested that you go and learn them.

Self-hosting/homoiconicity/meta-circular programming/code-as-data - it's all the same idea.

[PeteOlcott]

You fail to understand that C++ could create a language that does not have C++ limitations.

You fail to understand that I understand that. Those languages already exist.

It's precisely why I am suggested that you go and learn them.

Self-hosting/homoiconicity/meta-circular programming/code-as-data - it's all the same idea.

Languages that are used for building humans minds already exist.
One of them is called CycL. These guys never bothered to eliminate
paradox from their reprensentations so I am reformulating their work.

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