This whole conversation, as a physical event over a computer, is the manifestation of the physical through symbols which are abstractions.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 6:53 pmI am not trying to define reality that is impossible.
Physical sensations cannot be expressed as abstractions.
I am correctly defining aspects of a model of reality.
Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away
Pete, the promise of the system you are claiming to be building is that it will determine what is and isn't true.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:44 pm Whatever is definitely true is in the set of analytical knowledge.
Great! Write me an algorithm to decide that.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:44 pm It is definitely true that there really is an idea called the "big bang theory".
Great! Write me an algorithm to decide that.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:44 pm It is not definitely true that this idea itself is true. It is definitely true that
this idea has been categorized as uncertainly true.
Great! Write me an algorithm/function (lets call it ShouldInclude?() ) which given the input String: "The Big Bang Theory"PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:44 pm Here is the criterion measure for inclusion:
Is is definitely true (based on the meaning of these words) that there is
an idea that is called "the big bang theory?"
returns Boolean: True.
I don't know because I have no idea what "truth" is. You said your system will tell me.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:44 pm Is is definitely true (based on the meaning of these words) that the idea
of "the big bang theory?" is categorized as uncertainly true?
-
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away
I would estimate that when you say that you have no idea what truth is you are lying.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:38 amPete, the promise of the system you are claiming to be building is that it will determine what is and isn't true.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:44 pm Whatever is definitely true is in the set of analytical knowledge.
Great! Write me an algorithm to decide that.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:44 pm It is definitely true that there really is an idea called the "big bang theory".
Great! Write me an algorithm to decide that.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:44 pm It is not definitely true that this idea itself is true. It is definitely true that
this idea has been categorized as uncertainly true.
Great! Write me an algorithm/function (lets call it ShouldInclude?() ) which given the input String: "The Big Bang Theory"PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:44 pm Here is the criterion measure for inclusion:
Is is definitely true (based on the meaning of these words) that there is
an idea that is called "the big bang theory?"
returns Boolean: True.
I don't know because I have no idea what "truth" is. You said your system will tell me.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:44 pm Is is definitely true (based on the meaning of these words) that the idea
of "the big bang theory?" is categorized as uncertainly true?
What you really mean is that you do not have a perfectly complete and infallible criterion measure.
A perfectly complete and infallible criterion measure will require thousands of iterations of
improvements. The first step for you is acknowledging that what you just said:
---I have no idea what "truth" is.--- is a lie.
A rational dialogue cannot occur on the basis of dishonestly or gross exaggeration.
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away
I would estimate that you are lying by calling me a liar.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:48 pm I would estimate that when you say that you have no idea what truth is you are lying.
What you really mean is that you do not have a perfectly complete and infallible criterion measure.
What I really mean is what I said. Please stop insisting that you can read my mind; or speak on my behalf.
I am not asking you for perfection. I am asking you for minimum viable product.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:48 pm A perfectly complete and infallible criterion measure will require thousands of iterations of
improvements. The first step for you is acknowledging that what you just said:
Any algorithm. Even an imperfect one will suffice.
You are lying
Then stop lying.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:48 pm A rational dialogue cannot occur on the basis of dishonestly or gross exaggeration.
-
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away
I quit.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:05 pmI would estimate that you are lying by calling me a liar.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:48 pm I would estimate that when you say that you have no idea what truth is you are lying.
What you really mean is that you do not have a perfectly complete and infallible criterion measure.
What I really mean is what I said. Please stop insisting that you can read my mind; or speak on my behalf.
I am not asking you for perfection. I am asking you for minimum viable product.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:48 pm A perfectly complete and infallible criterion measure will require thousands of iterations of
improvements. The first step for you is acknowledging that what you just said:
Any algorithm. Even an imperfect one will suffice.
You are lying
Then stop lying.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:48 pm A rational dialogue cannot occur on the basis of dishonestly or gross exaggeration.