Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:15 pm Sure I do. Analytical truth is membership in the body of analytical knowledge.
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:48 pm Do you agree that membership in the body of analytical knowledge would indicate that an expression of language is true?
What are your admission criteria for membership into the "body of analytical knowledge" ?
How do you test whether a linguistic expression is in the "body of analytical knowledge" ?
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:37 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:15 pm Sure I do. Analytical truth is membership in the body of analytical knowledge.
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:48 pm Do you agree that membership in the body of analytical knowledge would indicate that an expression of language is true?
What are your admission criteria for membership into the "body of analytical knowledge" ?
How do you test whether a linguistic expression is in the "body of analytical knowledge" ?
That a set of relations has been stipulated and given a name proves that this set of stipulated relations has this name.
That this set of ideas has this name is an element of the body of analytic knowledge.
We can know for sure that "the big bang theory" specifies a very specific set of ideas and that these ideas are in the category of possibly true.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:57 pm That a set of relations has been stipulated and given a name proves that this set of stipulated relations has this name.
That this set of ideas has this name is an element of the body of analytic knowledge.
We can know for sure that "the big bang theory" specifies a very specific set of ideas and that these ideas are in the category of possibly true.
You didn't answer the question.

How do you decide whether to admit any particular English phrase into your database?

Give me an algorithm which decides that the English phrase "the big bang theory" should be admitted into your database.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 7:00 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:57 pm That a set of relations has been stipulated and given a name proves that this set of stipulated relations has this name.
That this set of ideas has this name is an element of the body of analytic knowledge.
We can know for sure that "the big bang theory" specifies a very specific set of ideas and that these ideas are in the category of possibly true.
You didn't answer the question.

How do you decide whether to admit any particular English phrase into your database?

Give me an algorithm which decides that the English phrase "the big bang theory" should be admitted into your database.
The definition of the term: "big bang theory" is in the database as the definition of the term.
It is certainly true that the term has its stipulated definition.

BASIC (Beginners' All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code)
100 let x = 5
110 REM we know for sure that x equals 5 at this point in the execution trace

It is also certainly true that it has been categorized as a theory thus not certainly true.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:48 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:04 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:15 pm

Sure I do. Analytical truth is membership in the body of analytical knowledge.
I also know how the axiomatic argument of the Münchhausen trilemma is overcome.
Then state it. The Munchauseen Trilemma is subject to itself, thus necessitating the trilemma to exist in in multiple forms where there is always a version of the trilemma that exists beyond the one addressed.
Do you agree that membership in the body of analytical knowledge would indicate that an expression of language is true?
The membership would necessitate a recursive extension of that body of knowledge so by default it would be true as any set of terms as a member of another set would reflect the prior set through a self referentiality.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Post by PeteOlcott »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:03 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:48 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:04 pm

Then state it. The Munchauseen Trilemma is subject to itself, thus necessitating the trilemma to exist in in multiple forms where there is always a version of the trilemma that exists beyond the one addressed.
Do you agree that membership in the body of analytical knowledge would indicate that an expression of language is true?
The membership would necessitate a recursive extension of that body of knowledge so by default it would be true as any set of terms as a member of another set would reflect the prior set through a self referentiality.
I can't make out what you are saying except that it does not answer my question.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:03 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:48 pm

Do you agree that membership in the body of analytical knowledge would indicate that an expression of language is true?
The membership would necessitate a recursive extension of that body of knowledge so by default it would be true as any set of terms as a member of another set would reflect the prior set through a self referentiality.
I can't make out what you are saying except that it does not answer my question.
Actually it answers the question. If B is a member of A it contains elements of A thus is a variation of A. B is an extension of A and as an extension of A necessitates A as self referential through B. A is self referential and as self referential necessitates it as a truth value.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Post by PeteOlcott »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 11:50 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:03 pm

The membership would necessitate a recursive extension of that body of knowledge so by default it would be true as any set of terms as a member of another set would reflect the prior set through a self referentiality.
I can't make out what you are saying except that it does not answer my question.
Actually it answers the question. If B is a member of A it contains elements of A thus is a variation of A. B is an extension of A and as an extension of A necessitates A as self referential through B. A is self referential and as self referential necessitates it as a truth value.
OK then this sentence is true: "This sentence is false." because it is self-referential.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 12:11 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 11:50 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:12 pm

I can't make out what you are saying except that it does not answer my question.
Actually it answers the question. If B is a member of A it contains elements of A thus is a variation of A. B is an extension of A and as an extension of A necessitates A as self referential through B. A is self referential and as self referential necessitates it as a truth value.
OK then this sentence is true: "This sentence is false." because it is self-referential.
The sentence is simultaneously true and false. It is true as self referential, false as open to expansion. For example "this sentence is false", is true as false but as false it requires further assertions to justify it. "This sentence is false if x" observes the statement as true given x as a context which expands the sentence yet further contexts are necessary. Thus the statements are always true as self referential yet this self referentiality necessitates a further expansion if definition is to be maintained. They are true as defined, but false as requiring further definition.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Post by PeteOlcott »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:29 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 12:11 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 11:50 pm

Actually it answers the question. If B is a member of A it contains elements of A thus is a variation of A. B is an extension of A and as an extension of A necessitates A as self referential through B. A is self referential and as self referential necessitates it as a truth value.
OK then this sentence is true: "This sentence is false." because it is self-referential.
The sentence is simultaneously true and false.
That is just not the way it works.
If a sentence is a Truth bearer then it has exactly one Boolean values otherwise a sentence is not a truth bearer.

Copyright 2020 (and prior years) Pete Olcott
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 7:19 pm The definition of the term: "big bang theory" is in the database as the definition of the term.
It is certainly true that the term has its stipulated definition.
WHY is it in the database, Pete?

Who allowed it into the database and how?
What is the stipulated definition of "God"?
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 7:35 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 7:19 pm The definition of the term: "big bang theory" is in the database as the definition of the term.
It is certainly true that the term has its stipulated definition.
WHY is it in the database, Pete?

Who allowed it into the database and how?
What is the stipulated definition of "God"?
Whatever is definitely true is in the set of analytical knowledge.
It is definitely true that there really is an idea called the "big bang theory".
It is not definitely true that this idea itself is true. It is definitely true that
this idea has been categorized as uncertainly true.

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?"

Is is definitely true (based on the meaning of these words) that the idea
of "the big bang theory?" is categorized as uncertainly true?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:37 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:29 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 12:11 am

OK then this sentence is true: "This sentence is false." because it is self-referential.
The sentence is simultaneously true and false.
That is just not the way it works.
If a sentence is a Truth bearer then it has exactly one Boolean values otherwise a sentence is not a truth bearer.

Copyright 2020 (and prior years) Pete Olcott
False, "this sentence is false" contains two truth values, one false and one true, where the truth value is derived from the context presented. All statements are localizations of a continuum, ie a part of a continuum, thus requires the remainder of the continuum in order to justify them. A is justified through B, B is justified through C, etc. thus necessitating an assertion beyond the original to justify it. To justify the sentence in terms of boolean values requires the boolean values to be justified by a context beyond it, and another beyond it, etc. otherwise your premise is strictly assumed.

However because this regress, while infinite, can only be expressed as finite your terms are always assumed.

It is the localization of any part of the continuum as necessitating all statements as dualistic, both true and false. For example "a unicorn exists" is both true and false. It is true under the context "the unicorn exists as imaginary". It is false under the context "the unicorn exists as an empirical biological entity". The context in which the statement exists determines the truth value, yet each statement is derived from a context beyond it thus necessitating a continual true and false truth value. Under these terms each assertion is simultaneously true and false. Truth value thus always maintains a state of superpositioning where multiple truth values exist simultaneously.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:44 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 7:35 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 7:19 pm The definition of the term: "big bang theory" is in the database as the definition of the term.
It is certainly true that the term has its stipulated definition.
WHY is it in the database, Pete?

Who allowed it into the database and how?
What is the stipulated definition of "God"?
Whatever is definitely true is in the set of analytical knowledge.
"Analytical knowledge" would have to be a set which contains itself is derived as true.


It is definitely true that there really is an idea called the "big bang theory".

Actually there are so many expressions of the big bang theory, it is not definitely true one idea of the big bang theory exists considering there are multiple expressions of it.

It is not definitely true that this idea itself is true.
The idea itself is true as an idea, yet many ideas of it exist this necessitating that there is not one idea. Many ideas as to how the big bang occurs necessitates multiple ideas.


It is definitely true that
this idea has been categorized as uncertainly true.
Proof is required for this.


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?"

False, there are many ideas about how the big bang occured. It is not definitely true that there is "an" idea of the theory.

Is is definitely true (based on the meaning of these words) that the idea
of "the big bang theory?" is categorized as uncertainly true?

No.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Post by PeteOlcott »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 3:54 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:37 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:29 am

The sentence is simultaneously true and false.
That is just not the way it works.
If a sentence is a Truth bearer then it has exactly one Boolean values otherwise a sentence is not a truth bearer.

Copyright 2020 (and prior years) Pete Olcott
False, "this sentence is false" contains two truth values
It just doesn't work that way you are violating the definition of the Boolean type.
You might as well have said that you can bake an angel food cake using only actual house bricks for ingredients.
Post Reply