Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

Post by PeteOlcott »

A Truth Bearer is an analytical expression of formal or natural language that specifies a relation that can be tested and resolved to a single Boolean value.
wtf
Posts: 966
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

Post by wtf »

PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:34 pm A Truth Bearer is an analytical expression of formal or natural language that specifies a relation that can be tested and resolved to a single Boolean value.
Wikipedia defines truth bearer as: "A truth-bearer is an entity that is said to be either true or false and nothing else."

That strikes me as clear and maximally general. No extra conditions are put on it. It's a thing that can be either true or false and nothing else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-bearer

Your definition requires that it "specifies a relation," which you haven't defined; and that "can be tested," but you don't specify the nature of these tests or who conducts them.

Your definition seems encumbered with conceptual trouble from the getgo, due to the extra baggage and many undefined terms.

It's simple and maximally general to say a truth bearer is an object that can only be true or false and nothing else, and to add no extra conditions whatsoever that it be a relation or be testable or be painted orange or anything else.

For those reasons I find the Wiki definition superior to yours.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

Post by PeteOlcott »

wtf wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 3:00 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:34 pm A Truth Bearer is an analytical expression of formal or natural language that specifies a relation that can be tested and resolved to a single Boolean value.
Wikipedia defines truth bearer as: "A truth-bearer is an entity that is said to be either true or false and nothing else."

That strikes me as clear and maximally general. No extra conditions are put on it. It's a thing that can be either true or false and nothing else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-bearer
It is not literally an entity that is either true or false and nothing else because none of those exist.
A proposition is not true or false and nothing else, it is true or false AND a proposition.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/

This much is agreed: “x makes it true that p” is a construction that signifies, if it signifies anything at all, a relation borne to a truth-bearer by something else, a truth-maker.

It might best be construed as an expression of language that resolves to the Boolean value of True or false.

What I am aiming for is a definition of truth bearer that screens out semantic paradoxes as ill-formed.
Skepdick
Posts: 4808
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:34 pm A Truth Bearer is an analytical expression of formal or natural language that specifies a relation that can be tested and resolved to a single Boolean value.
You are re-stating the decision problem.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:42 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:34 pm A Truth Bearer is an analytical expression of formal or natural language that specifies a relation that can be tested and resolved to a single Boolean value.
You are re-stating the decision problem.
I am increasing the precise accuracy of the statement so that it conforms more closely to the actual underlying relationships.
Once Truth Bearer is defined correctly paradoxes are rejected as ill-formed.
Skepdick
Posts: 4808
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 3:16 am What I am aiming for is a definition of truth bearer that screens out semantic paradoxes as ill-formed.
If you "screen out" semantic paradoxes as "ill-informed" you will destroy the very thing that makes a model - a model. The extra information used for interpretation.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/#Basic
Sometimes we write or speak a sentence S that expresses nothing either true or false, because some crucial information is missing about what the words mean. If we go on to add this information, so that S comes to express a true or false statement, we are said to interpret S, and the added information is called an interpretation of S.
Skepdick
Posts: 4808
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:53 am I am increasing the precise accuracy of the statement so that it conforms more closely to the actual underlying relationships.
Once Truth Bearer is defined correctly paradoxes are rejected as ill-formed.
If you give me a definition that rejects my paradoxes, then I'll just reject your definition.

Paradoxes is what signals new information to our brains. Paradoxes are unhandled exceptions - edge/corner cases. Paradoxes cause learning.

If the system was symmetrical it will be sterile. Paradox-free. No information could ever leave it under observation.

Stop trying to break what you don't understand. Information-flow is obvious if you use S-notation.

Is ((!X)) = (!(X)) true or false?
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:00 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 3:16 am What I am aiming for is a definition of truth bearer that screens out semantic paradoxes as ill-formed.
If you "screen out" semantic paradoxes as "ill-informed" you will destroy the very thing that makes a model - a model. The extra information used for interpretation.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/#Basic
Sometimes we write or speak a sentence S that expresses nothing either true or false, because some crucial information is missing about what the words mean. If we go on to add this information, so that S comes to express a true or false statement, we are said to interpret S, and the added information is called an interpretation of S.
If I screen out lies would this ruin human communication?
Semantic paradoxes only exist in language because language was formed incorrectly.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:01 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:53 am I am increasing the precise accuracy of the statement so that it conforms more closely to the actual underlying relationships.
Once Truth Bearer is defined correctly paradoxes are rejected as ill-formed.
If you give me a definition that rejects my paradoxes, then I'll just reject your definition.

Paradoxes is what signals new information to our brains. Paradoxes are unhandled exceptions - edge/corner cases. Paradoxes cause learning.

If the system was symmetrical it will be sterile. Paradox-free. No information could ever leave it under observation.

Stop trying to break what you don't understand. Information-flow is obvious if you use S-notation.

Is ((!X)) = (!(X)) true or false?
Paradoxes indicate that language was formed incorrectly. I fixed the mistake.
If we understand your expression as C++ it would assign the RHS to the LHS.

Here it is reformulated == to be Boolean comparison:
bool X
if ( ((!X)) == (!(X)) )
printf("They are equal\n");
Skepdick
Posts: 4808
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:33 pm If I screen out lies would this ruin human communication?
Semantic paradoxes only exist in language because language was formed incorrectly.
Pete, how many times must we go through this? Language wasn't formed, it evolved.

Semantic paradoxes exist because I can CHOSE to view things differently to you.

If you think you are "fixing" language - I don't want your solution.
Skepdick
Posts: 4808
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:40 pm Paradoxes indicate that language was formed incorrectly. I fixed the mistake.
OK. Keep your fix - I don't want it.
PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:40 pm If we understand your expression as C++ it would assign the RHS to the LHS.

Here it is reformulated == to be Boolean comparison:
bool X
if ( ((!X)) == (!(X)) )
printf("They are equal\n");
Don't understand it as C++. Understand it as LISP.

https://repl.it/repls/SarcasticSupportiveNaturaldocs

Code: Select all

(eq? "(!(X))" "((!X))" )
=> #f
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:56 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:33 pm If I screen out lies would this ruin human communication?
Semantic paradoxes only exist in language because language was formed incorrectly.
Pete, how many times must we go through this? Language wasn't formed, it evolved.

Semantic paradoxes exist because I can CHOSE to view things differently to you.

If you think you are "fixing" language - I don't want your solution.
None-the-less only from the basis of how I defined a formal system can an automated process be specified to read written material to detect and report falsehoods. Such a system could flag all Fake News as lies.

This has been updated to include these additional elaborations:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... bout_Godel
Skepdick
Posts: 4808
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:13 pm None-the-less only from the basis of how I defined a formal system can an automated process be specified to read written material to detect and report falsehoods. Such a system could flag all Fake News as lies.
Pete. I have the urge to insult you at this point, but I'll refrain. This is a dead honest question.

Do you think that the difficulty in the mechanical classification/distinction between "real news" and "fake news" boils down to a re-defining the notion of a "formal system" ? How does an English definition overcome the actual technical difficulties in implementing such a mechanism?

You can't even solve the trivial case such as '(!(X))' == '((!X))'. How do you propose you are actually going to solve this for natural language?
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:50 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:13 pm None-the-less only from the basis of how I defined a formal system can an automated process be specified to read written material to detect and report falsehoods. Such a system could flag all Fake News as lies.
Pete. I have the urge to insult you at this point, but I'll refrain. This is a dead honest question.

Do you think that the difficulty in the mechanical classification/distinction between "real news" and "fake news" boils down to a re-defining the notion of a "formal system" ? How does an English definition overcome the actual technical difficulties in implementing such a mechanism?
My architectural design of the redefinition of a formal system self-evidently does what it claims to anyone that can understand what I am saying.

Any expression of language that because of its structure cannot be resolved to exactly one of {True, false}
through a parallel set syntactic and semantic inference steps is not a truth bearer.
http://liarparadox.org/godel-1931_Finit ... _Basis.pdf

I added several paragraphs of clarification this morning.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... bout_Godel
Last edited by PeteOlcott on Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 4808
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:12 pm My architectural design of the redefinition of a formal system self-evidently does what it claims to anyone that can understand what I am saying.
I don't want to "understand what you are saying". I want you to show me a working prototype. Practical, not theoretical solution.

Determine the truth-value of something as trivial as A == A
PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:12 pm Any expression of language that because of its structure cannot be resolved to exactly one of {True, false} is not a truth bearer.
That doesn't mean that the expression is not a truth bearer. It just means you can't tell if its.
Post Reply