Conceptual Truth can be understood as math

[Skepdick]

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

From your very own wiki page.

the modern version is ..... a declarative language based on classical first-order logic

[PeteOlcott]

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

From your very own wiki page.

the modern version is ..... a declarative language based on classical first-order logic

Hence one of the reasons that I have to reformulate it and cannot use it as it us.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

[Skepdick]

Hence one of the reasons that I have to reformulate it and cannot use it as it us.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

You do understand that the problem you have formulated is equivalent to Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem problem, right?

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

Which is the halting problem. You are chasing your own tail.

[PeteOlcott]

Hence one of the reasons that I have to reformulate it and cannot use it as it us.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

You do understand that the problem you have formulated is equivalent to Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem problem, right?

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

Which is the halting problem.

Yes I know this and that is the reason why I have been always working on all three problems concurrently since 1997.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

Patent is a patent, fallacy of authority.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

False, all premises are assumed.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

I am not arguing boolean, and you are analyzing in making that distinction. Analysis breaks a phenomenon into parts...period.

[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.

I am not arguing boolean, and you are analyzing in making that distinction. Analysis breaks a phenomenon into parts...period.

I will refrain from responding until after you show that you know these things well enough.

[Skepdick]

Yes I know this and that is the reason why I have been always working on all three problems concurrently since 1997.

Philosophy has been working on this problem since - ever.

You are trying to define the Truth-type. Or rather, you have defined the truth Truth-type as True: String:X -> Boolean:Y and now you are trying to implement it/write its "proof".

From a statistical lens, what you are building is a Binary classifier, and you are attempting to define the classification rule.

There are infinitely many implementations.
There are infinitely many algorithms.
Infinitely many sets of classification rules to choose from.

Principle of equifinality applies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equifinality

There are better ways to be enjoying retirement age methinks.

[PeteOlcott]

Yes I know this and that is the reason why I have been always working on all three problems concurrently since 1997.

Philosophy has been working on this problem since - ever.

You are trying to define the Truth-type. Or rather, you have defined the truth Truth-type as True: String:X -> Boolean:Y and now you are trying to implement it/write its "proof".

From a statistical lens, what you are building is a Binary classifier, and you are attempting to define the classification rule.

There are infinitely many implementations.
There are infinitely many algorithms.
Infinitely many sets of classification rules to choose from.

Principle of equifinality applies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equifinality

There are better ways to be enjoying retirement age methinks.

Conceptual truth is ONLY mutually interlocking semantic tautologies that can ALWAYS
be represented as the satisfaction of stipulated relations between finite strings.


Copyright Pete Olcott 2019

[Skepdick]

Conceptual truth is ONLY mutually interlocking semantic tautologies that can ALWAYS
be represented as the satisfaction of stipulated relations between finite strings.

Brilliant! You have made a testable claim. Now we can do some science!

The experiment is simply to determine whether the above sentence is true or false.

Let me help you get started. Fix the implementation of the "is_true" function so that the trivial unit test passes.

https://repl.it/repls/FuchsiaVivaciousDemo

Code: Select all

def is_true(string):
  return False
   
def test():
  pete_olcott_claim='''
Conceptual truth is ONLY mutually interlocking semantic tautologies that can ALWAYS
be represented as the satisfaction of stipulated relations between finite strings.'''
  return is_true(pete_olcott_claim) == True

if test():
  print("Pete's algorithm works.")
else:
  print("More work is needed.")

[PeteOlcott]

Conceptual truth is ONLY mutually interlocking semantic tautologies that can ALWAYS
be represented as the satisfaction of stipulated relations between finite strings.

Is the above statement true? How would your algorithm tell?

This is already fully operational in Prolog.
Prolog has two kinds of stipulated relations between finite strings: Facts and Rules.
True is whenever a query returns "Yes".

[Skepdick]

This is already fully operational in Prolog.
Prolog has two kinds of stipulated relations between finite strings: Facts and Rules.
True is whenever a query returns "Yes".

The facts-rules dualism is EXACTLY the same as the code-data dualism.

Which I have been pointing out to you all along. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_as_data

Write the algorithm which takes your very own claim as an input string and determines that it's true.

Conceptual truth is ONLY mutually interlocking semantic tautologies that can ALWAYS
be represented as the satisfaction of stipulated relations between finite strings.

You are welcome to use any programming language of your choice. Prolog, C++, Invent a language - doesn't matter.

When you do that - you have proven Tarski wrong.

[PeteOlcott]

This is already fully operational in Prolog.
Prolog has two kinds of stipulated relations between finite strings: Facts and Rules.
True is whenever a query returns "Yes".

The facts-rules dualism is EXACTLY the same as the code-data dualism.

Which I have been pointing out to you all along. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_as_data

Write the algorithm which determines that the statement you have made is true.
You are welcome to use any programming language of your choice. Prolog, C++, Invent a language - doesn't matter.

Conceptual truth is ONLY mutually interlocking semantic tautologies that can ALWAYS
be represented as the satisfaction of stipulated relations between finite strings.

(1) I made my point.
(2) Prolog proves my point.
(3) Done

[Skepdick]

(1) I made my point.
(2) Prolog proves my point.
(3) Done

Liar!

When you produce the algorithm which takes your own statement as an input-string, and it returns True as a result, THEN you have proven Tarski wrong.

I've done the ground-work for you: https://repl.it/repls/FuchsiaVivaciousDemo

I await your implementation a.k.a proof.