PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:16 pm
Age wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:11 am
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 2:14 pm
So we can make a Chatbot that unceasingly argues against each and everyone of these people on social media every which way thus quelling counter-factual disinformation before it ever gets started.
But Who is going to program WHICH WAY the chat it is going to LOOK AT and VIEW 'things'?
you keep appearing to completely MISS or MISUNDERSTAND the ACTUAL ISSUE here
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 2:14 pm
No one will ever make any attempt to do this while they believe that the Tarski undefinability theorem is true.
False.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 2:14 pm
I have already shown how prolog screens out the Liar Paradox, and since the Tarski undefinability theorem has only the Liar Paradox as its basis his whole theorem utterly ceases to prove its point.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
WHEN, and IF, you EVER PROVIDE ANY so-called 'real life' examples here, then I WILL SHOW and PROVE HOW and WHY what you want to design and achieve here will NEVER WORK.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 2:14 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... neral_form
In my system (having the same architecture as the Prolog inference model) the truth of expressions of language is derived from Facts and/or deduced from Facts based on Rules. The Liar Paradox (in this system) is simply untrue. Such a system cannot be incomplete in the Gödel sense because Unprovable(L,x) simply means Untrue(L,x).
Although 'godel's theorem', the 'liars paradox', and 'tarski's undefinability' are all False, Wrong, Inaccurate, Incorrect, and/or incomplete in and of themselves, it is NOT 'these things' that is STOPPING you from achieving what you want here.
What IS ACTUALLY STOPPING you is the Fact that 'it' IS an IMPOSSIBLE goal.
you are just SAYING and USING 'these things' to 'TRY TO' BLAME for NIT YET achieving what you want here.
It is not impossible for a Chatbot to have sufficiently complete and correct model of the world to very effectively argue against claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
The simple fact that there is no evidence of election fraud sufficient to change the results of the 2020 election is an excellent basis to begin with.
LOL
you say and claim here that some so-called 'chatbot' could complete some model, and then 'effectively argue', for that model above here. But, let us NOT forget that even 'you', a human being', just SAID there there was not enough sufficient evidence to change the results.
So, 'you', "yourself', have, ALREADY, JUST DONE what you say is NOT impossible for a chatbot to be able to do.
Besides this OBVIOUS Fact NO computer could make ANY such CLAIM as there is NO evidence existing, for some 'thing', if 'you', human beings, have NOT YET DECIDED, we are STILL AT, WHEN you discover and/or work out what 'it' is EXACTLY what 'truth', itself, is solely depended upon, then we can MOVE ALONG and PROGRESS here.