Page 19 of 23

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:49 pm
PeteOlcott wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:48 pm
Ultimately I am only proving that Gödel Incompleteness
and Tarski Undefinability are incorrect
You. Can't. Do. That.

How do two nodes agree on the meaning of one word starting with zero knowledge?

Go ahead and get Bob and Alice to agree on the semantic meaning of "Truth".
Go ahead and get Bob (who knows what Truth means) to communicate that meaning to Alice (who doesn't know what Truth means).

Bob says that "Truth" means one thing. Alice says that "Truth" means something else. Whose Truth-semantic is right?

To solve this problem you need to solve the relativization barrier.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:16 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:49 pm
PeteOlcott wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:48 pm
Ultimately I am only proving that Gödel Incompleteness
and Tarski Undefinability are incorrect
You. Can't. Do. That.

How do two nodes agree on the meaning of one word starting with zero knowledge?

Go ahead and get Bob and Alice to agree on the semantic meaning of "Truth".
Go ahead and get Bob (who knows what Truth means) to communicate that meaning to Alice (who doesn't know what Truth means).

Bob says that "Truth" means one thing. Alice says that "Truth" means something else. Whose Truth-semantic is right?

To solve this problem you need to solve the relativization barrier.
Conceptual truth is a set of stipulated relations between meanings mutually defining
each other semantically comprising the body of conceptual knowledge. That fact
that nearly all conceptual knowledge can be effectively encoded and decoded
correctly refutes your claims to the contrary.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:36 pm
PeteOlcott wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:16 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:49 pm
PeteOlcott wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:48 pm
Ultimately I am only proving that Gödel Incompleteness
and Tarski Undefinability are incorrect
You. Can't. Do. That.

How do two nodes agree on the meaning of one word starting with zero knowledge?

Go ahead and get Bob and Alice to agree on the semantic meaning of "Truth".
Go ahead and get Bob (who knows what Truth means) to communicate that meaning to Alice (who doesn't know what Truth means).

Bob says that "Truth" means one thing. Alice says that "Truth" means something else. Whose Truth-semantic is right?

To solve this problem you need to solve the relativization barrier.
Conceptual truth is a set of stipulated relations between meanings mutually defining
each other semantically comprising the body of conceptual knowledge.

That means the definitions of all words, as defintion is a relation, are circular.....

That fact
that nearly all conceptual knowledge can be effectively encoded and decoded
correctly refutes your claims to the contrary.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:26 am
PeteOlcott wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:16 pm
Conceptual truth is a set of stipulated relations between meanings mutually defining
each other semantically comprising the body of conceptual knowledge.
20 years on that meaningless word salad. It's funny or sad, pathetic or horrifying.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:18 am
wtf wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:26 am
PeteOlcott wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:16 pm
Conceptual truth is a set of stipulated relations between meanings mutually defining
each other semantically comprising the body of conceptual knowledge.
20 years on that meaningless word salad. It's funny or sad, pathetic or horrifying.
It is pretty pitiful that you only have empty rhetoric bereft of reasoning.
I thought that I remembered that you were my best reviewer on this forum.
Maybe the philosophical aspects are out of your comfort zone?

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:21 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:36 pm
PeteOlcott wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:16 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:49 pm

You. Can't. Do. That.

How do two nodes agree on the meaning of one word starting with zero knowledge?

Go ahead and get Bob and Alice to agree on the semantic meaning of "Truth".
Go ahead and get Bob (who knows what Truth means) to communicate that meaning to Alice (who doesn't know what Truth means).

Bob says that "Truth" means one thing. Alice says that "Truth" means something else. Whose Truth-semantic is right?

To solve this problem you need to solve the relativization barrier.
Conceptual truth is a set of stipulated relations between meanings mutually defining
each other semantically comprising the body of conceptual knowledge.

That means the definitions of all words, as defintion is a relation, are circular.....

That fact
that nearly all conceptual knowledge can be effectively encoded and decoded
correctly refutes your claims to the contrary.
What I am proposing has the same structure as a Prolog database, thus not circular at all.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:46 am
PeteOlcott wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:16 pm
Conceptual truth is a set of stipulated relations between meanings mutually defining
each other semantically comprising the body of conceptual knowledge.
What defines the conceptually true concept of 'definition'?

You need some morphology in your life.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:56 am
PeteOlcott wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:21 am
What I am proposing has the same structure as a Prolog database, thus not circular at all.
FYI, you do know that Quine succeeded in reproducing the Liar's paradox in the form of a directed graph, right?
E.g no self references.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:28 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:46 am
PeteOlcott wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:16 pm
Conceptual truth is a set of stipulated relations between meanings mutually defining
each other semantically comprising the body of conceptual knowledge.
What defines the conceptually true concept of 'definition'?

You need some morphology in your life.
The relation of words to each other is handled by predicates, which is merely
another name for Relations:
"="("2 + 3", "5") has its Boolean property assigned the value of TRUE.

The above is merely a single example to show the gist of what stipulated
relations between finite strings are. Arithmetic would actually be handled
by an algorithm.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:29 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:56 am
PeteOlcott wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:21 am
What I am proposing has the same structure as a Prolog database, thus not circular at all.
FYI, you do know that Quine succeeded in reproducing the Liar's paradox in the form of a directed graph, right?
E.g no self references.

When Quine handles the Liar Paradox without self-reference he does
so incorrectly because the Liar Paradox specifies Self-Reference.

The ONLY way to fully understand things as difficult as the Liar Paradox
is to boil them down to their barest essence, Quine does the opposite of this.

LP := ~True(LP) This one is logically equivalent LP ↔ ~True(LP).
The second one essentially says that it is logically equivalent to not being logically equivalent.

The Formalized Liar Paradox says that LP is materially equivalent to Not True.
The truth table shows that this is self-contradictory.
LP ↔ ¬True(LP)
T---F------F
F---F------T

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:26 pm
wtf wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:26 am
PeteOlcott wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:16 pm
Conceptual truth is a set of stipulated relations between meanings mutually defining
each other semantically comprising the body of conceptual knowledge.
20 years on that meaningless word salad. It's funny or sad, pathetic or horrifying.
It necessitates circularity...I learned this by looking up words in a dictionary within the first few weeks of taking my philosophical studies seriously.

One word leads to another word, which leads back to the original word, while both words lead to a new group of words.

Same applies to the number line.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:39 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:26 pm
wtf wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:26 am
PeteOlcott wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:16 pm
Conceptual truth is a set of stipulated relations between meanings mutually defining
each other semantically comprising the body of conceptual knowledge.
20 years on that meaningless word salad. It's funny or sad, pathetic or horrifying.
It necessitates circularity...I learned this by looking up words in a dictionary within the first few weeks of taking my philosophical studies seriously.

One word leads to another word, which leads back to the original word, while both words lead to a new group of words.

Same applies to the number line.
What I am proposing has the same fundamental acyclic directed graph structure
as a Prolog database. That you continue your rant about circularity after I
pointed this point seems quite foolish.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:43 pm
wtf wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:26 am
PeteOlcott wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:16 pm
Conceptual truth is a set of stipulated relations between meanings mutually defining
each other semantically comprising the body of conceptual knowledge.
20 years on that meaningless word salad. It's funny or sad, pathetic or horrifying.
That you don't understand the meaning of what I said only proves your own
ignorance and nothing more.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 7:07 pm
PeteOlcott wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:39 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:26 pm
wtf wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:26 am

20 years on that meaningless word salad. It's funny or sad, pathetic or horrifying.
It necessitates circularity...I learned this by looking up words in a dictionary within the first few weeks of taking my philosophical studies seriously.

One word leads to another word, which leads back to the original word, while both words lead to a new group of words.

Same applies to the number line.
What I am proposing has the same fundamental acyclic directed graph structure
as a Prolog database. That you continue your rant about circularity after I
pointed this point seems quite foolish.
That prolog database is dependent upon the context of languages outside of it...it is not limited to all languages bowing to prolog.

Kind of like a pinata, I keep beating it and little fun and interesting facts spill ever where...they make me sick and disgusted like a child who ate too much candy...but hey kids will be kids...

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2019 7:38 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 7:07 pm
PeteOlcott wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:39 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:26 pm

It necessitates circularity...I learned this by looking up words in a dictionary within the first few weeks of taking my philosophical studies seriously.

One word leads to another word, which leads back to the original word, while both words lead to a new group of words.

Same applies to the number line.
What I am proposing has the same fundamental acyclic directed graph structure
as a Prolog database. That you continue your rant about circularity after I
pointed this point seems quite foolish.
That prolog database is dependent upon the context of languages outside of it...it is not limited to all languages bowing to prolog.