## Conceptual Truth can be understood as math

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:13 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:03 pm
A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently-self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.
1. Precision, through analysis, necessitates ambiguity elsewhere hence is self defeating.

Precision, as a premise, cancels itself out...this is a paradox.
My pet cat Tabby is sitting on my lap and an animal is sitting on my lap simply express
the natural inheritance hierarchy order of the set of all knowledge.
[/quote]
This statement is ambiguous one day from now. It is an assumption of the senses within an assumed context of time.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:52 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:13 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:03 pm
A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently-self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.
1. Precision, through analysis, necessitates ambiguity elsewhere hence is self defeating.

Precision, as a premise, cancels itself out...this is a paradox.
My pet cat Tabby is sitting on my lap and an animal is sitting on my lap simply express
the natural inheritance hierarchy order of the set of all knowledge.
This statement is ambiguous one day from now. It is an assumption of the senses within an assumed context of time.
[/quote]

Yes it may be the case that animals only refer to dump trucks and utterly cease to have anything to do
with any category of life toggled back and forth between these two meanings every 30 seconds from
here to eternity. Also all of the utterly absurd change in semantics is entirely caused by the fact that
Tabby does not look 100% perfectly the same as she did yesterday.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:13 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:52 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:13 pm
1. Precision, through analysis, necessitates ambiguity elsewhere hence is self defeating.

Precision, as a premise, cancels itself out...this is a paradox.
My pet cat Tabby is sitting on my lap and an animal is sitting on my lap simply express
the natural inheritance hierarchy order of the set of all knowledge.
This statement is ambiguous one day from now. It is an assumption of the senses within an assumed context of time.
Yes it may be the case that animals only refer to dump trucks and utterly cease to have anything to do
with any category of life back and toggled back between meanings and for every 30 seconds from
here to eternity.
[/quote]
Paradox sets the premise for form as truth, and as such is truth.

The dualistic state, of any assumed axioms, requires an inherent connectivity where each axiom as a point of awareness projects to the other as a third point in itself.

Paradox sets the premise for form, and mathematics as grounded in "quantity", inevitably results in quality.

One point to two points results in distance. Quantity cancels itself out into quality.

Math and logic are thus isomorphisms. Math alone, as the assumed variable for truth, thus follows the paradox of increasing clarity results in increasing ambiguity.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Skepdick wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:18 pm What is the cardinality of my knowledge-base?
I answered that question and you removed the context to make it look that I did not answer that question.

I presume that I mean the infinite set of everything that can possibly be known about everything.
I correct this false presumption and you fail to notice.

There are two finite knowledge bases that at any point in time have a cardinality of N and M:
(1) General knowledge.
(2) Discourse knowledge.

I have spent tens of thousands of hours thinking these things through lease at least pay enough
Attention to notice that I did answer your question, otherwise I will think that you are a worthless
troll not worth my time.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Skepdick wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:44 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:37 pm Forget that I ever said anything about C++. Assume that I am using a Turing machine.
ROFL. You really like re-inventing wheels.
You lack the capacity to understand these things so I am forced to drop the subject.
Bottom line I am creating a fully functional human mind implemented as software.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:52 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:13 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:03 pm
A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently-self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.
1. Precision, through analysis, necessitates ambiguity elsewhere hence is self defeating.

Precision, as a premise, cancels itself out...this is a paradox.
My pet cat Tabby is sitting on my lap and an animal is sitting on my lap simply express
the natural inheritance hierarchy order of the set of all knowledge.
This statement is ambiguous one day from now. It is an assumption of the senses within an assumed context of time.
[/quote]

PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:21 pm
The dualistic state, of any assumed axioms, requires an inherent connectivity where each axiom as a point of awareness projects to the other as a third point in itself.
So you changed the subject to religion.
Skepdick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:36 pm I answered that question and you removed the context to make it look that I did not answer that question.
Eh? I quoted your response in full. You didn't answer my question.
I gave you a concrete example and you dodged it with a general response.

Convenient.
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:36 pm There are two finite knowledge bases that at any point in time have a cardinality of N and M:
(1) General knowledge.
(2) Discourse knowledge.
Given the premises above is the following English sentence true or false: The discourse knowledge base has cardinality M.

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:36 pm I have spent tens of thousands of hours thinking these things through lease at least pay enough
Attention to notice that I did answer your question, otherwise I will think that you are a worthless
troll not worth my time.
You didn't answer the question. You are desperately avoiding the edge case that makes your system blow up.

The moment you classify the sentence above as true the cardinality of your knowledge base increments by 1, therefore immediately rendering the sentence false. The moment the sentence becomes false the cardinality of your knowledge-base decrements by 1 rendering the sentence true.

Oh eheh! Liar's paradox all over again.
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:29 am, edited 3 times in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:42 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:52 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:13 pm
1. Precision, through analysis, necessitates ambiguity elsewhere hence is self defeating.

Precision, as a premise, cancels itself out...this is a paradox.
My pet cat Tabby is sitting on my lap and an animal is sitting on my lap simply express
the natural inheritance hierarchy order of the set of all knowledge.
This statement is ambiguous one day from now. It is an assumption of the senses within an assumed context of time.
[/quote]

Actually there is considering to notice ambiguity requires an awareness of some precision. To say something is ambiguous is a precise statement.
Skepdick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:40 pm You lack the capacity to understand these things so I am forced to drop the subject.
Bottom line I am creating a fully functional human mind implemented as software.
Can this "fully functional" software mind emulate its creator's delusions of grandeur?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:44 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:21 pm
The dualistic state, of any assumed axioms, requires an inherent connectivity where each axiom as a point of awareness projects to the other as a third point in itself.
So you changed the subject to religion.
No, because all numbers are assumed as 1 is assumed.

One is the foundation for counting.

But this is an assumption of a phenomena, thus 1 is not only assumed but an act of assumption.

1 is assumed, without thought, on an empty mind that is void. 1 effectively projects itself towards 0 as evidenced in the repetition of the line (1) always projecting to point zero. This is a recursion of the basic act of counting.

The empty mind fundamentally Inverts the phenomena from one aspect of reality and localizes it as an assumption. For example I count an orange, I assume it is there.

This separates the orange from all other phenomenon. Thus the orange as 1, projects away from 0 simulataneously. Thus 1 projects away from zero. This is observed in the number line as well.

Empty mind, 0, cancels itself out into form (1), by an inherent projection (ie the orange). The orange however is continually assumed through an empty mind, thus continually is counted.

Each projection of the orange, observes a recursion of the orange as the first projection matches a second, third, fourth, etc. assumption of the orange.

One orange turns into two and the act of counting is the inverting of one assumption into many. This occurs in the assumption of one axiom (the orange) exists as a standard where its form acts as a means of localizing further oranges.

The mind is empty = 0

The mind assumes a form = 1, ie 0 or emptymindeness canceling itself out.

This form is projected = 0 canceling itself into line as 1. This is the foundation for definition and time as the relation of parts.

The form aligns with other forms resulting in an inversion of the one form to many. If I count one orange then another, I am changing from one orange to another orange, thus the one assumption exists repeatedly.

My continual assumption, of the orange as oranges, requires a continual empty minded state resulting in one form inverting to a other. 0 is formless, thus acts as a function. Emptymindness, ie 0 quantitatively speaking, inverts 1 form into another form much in the same manner 1 line is inverted to 2 lines, etc.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Skepdick wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:46 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:36 pm I answered that question and you removed the context to make it look that I did not answer that question.
Eh? I quoted your response in full. You didn't answer my question.
I gave you a concrete example and you dodged it with a general response.

Convenient.
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:36 pm There are two finite knowledge bases that at any point in time have a cardinality of N and M:
(1) General knowledge.
(2) Discourse knowledge.
Given the premises above is the following English sentence true or false: The discourse knowledge base has cardinality M.
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:36 pm I have spent tens of thousands of hours thinking these things through lease at least pay enough
Attention to notice that I did answer your question, otherwise I will think that you are a worthless
troll not worth my time.
You didn't answer the question. You are desperately avoiding the edge case that makes your system blow up.

The moment you classify the sentence above as true the cardinality of your knowledge base increments by 1, therefore immediately rendering the sentence false. The moment the sentence becomes false the cardinality of your knowledge-base decrements by 1 rendering the sentence true.
You are disrespectfully not paying attention to the distinctions that I have carefully outlined.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:40 pm
Skepdick wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:44 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:37 pm Forget that I ever said anything about C++. Assume that I am using a Turing machine.
ROFL. You really like re-inventing wheels.
You lack the capacity to understand these things so I am forced to drop the subject.
Bottom line I am creating a fully functional human mind implemented as software.
False, the most you can do is create a variation of the source. The assumptive nature of the human mind is grounded in voidness.

This assumptive nature is the grounding of awareness. You would effectively have to create a blank mirror that reflects undefined states into defined ones. It would have to project forms by recycling them.
Skepdick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

PeteOlcott wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:37 am You are disrespectfully not paying attention to the distinctions that I have carefully outlined.
Your distinctions are useless without a classification function.

Which category does the statement "The cardinality of general knowledge is N" belong to?
Which category does the statement "The cardinality of discourse knowledge is M" belong to?

N and M are NOT constants. English is pass-by-value not pass-by-reference.

The truth-value of the sentence is a function of the system's cardinality.
When the cardinality changes. The truth-value changes with it.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Skepdick wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:45 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:37 am You are disrespectfully not paying attention to the distinctions that I have carefully outlined.
Your distinctions are useless without a classification function.

Which category does the statement "The cardinality of general knowledge is N" belong to?
Which category does the statement "The cardinality of discourse knowledge is M" belong to?

N and M are NOT constants. English is pass-by-value not pass-by-reference.

The truth-value of the sentence is a function of the system's cardinality.
When the cardinality changes. The truth-value changes with it.
Agreed.