## Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

### Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

PeteOlcott wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 6:53 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 6:38 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 6:26 pm

You are being deceptive. I quit!
Actually I am not. Your theory just makes no sense, that is all. You cannot define reality without ending in contradiction.
I 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.
This whole conversation, as a physical event over a computer, is the manifestation of the physical through symbols which are abstractions.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

PeteOlcott wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:44 pm Whatever is definitely true is in the set of analytical knowledge.
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 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 to decide that.
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?"
Great! Write me an algorithm/function (lets call it ShouldInclude?() ) which given the input String: "The Big Bang Theory"
returns Boolean: True.
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?
I don't know because I have no idea what "truth" is. You said your system will tell me.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:38 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 2:44 pm Whatever is definitely true is in the set of analytical knowledge.
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 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 to decide that.
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?"
Great! Write me an algorithm/function (lets call it ShouldInclude?() ) which given the input String: "The Big Bang Theory"
returns Boolean: True.
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?
I don't know because I have no idea what "truth" is. You said your system will tell me.
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.

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

### Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

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.
I would estimate that you are lying by calling me a liar.

What I really mean is what I said. Please stop insisting that you can read my mind; or speak on my behalf.
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:
I am not asking you for perfection. I am asking you for minimum viable product.

Any algorithm. Even an imperfect one will suffice.
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:48 pm ---I have no idea what "truth" is.--- is a lie.
You are lying
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:48 pm A rational dialogue cannot occur on the basis of dishonestly or gross exaggeration.
Then stop lying.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness away

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:05 pm
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.
I would estimate that you are lying by calling me a liar.

What I really mean is what I said. Please stop insisting that you can read my mind; or speak on my behalf.
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:
I am not asking you for perfection. I am asking you for minimum viable product.

Any algorithm. Even an imperfect one will suffice.
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:48 pm ---I have no idea what "truth" is.--- is a lie.
You are lying
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:48 pm A rational dialogue cannot occur on the basis of dishonestly or gross exaggeration.
Then stop lying.
I quit.