promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 2:48 am
what would qualify as an instance of something useful that could be done with your theories, Olcott? is there some practical application for your theories and revisions beyond the purely abstract discussion of it with skepdick who's gonna disagree with everything out of principle anyway? i mean like computer science or something. if logicians and mathematicians agreed with u and u went down in Wikipedia history, how will the world be awesomer?
i feel like your field is gonna be AI dude. you're gonna create algorithmic code that'll make AIs reach a level of beta-consciousness that isn't possible with our current Turing-Godel standard of quantum coding. u very well may be the one to bridge the distance between man and machine, Olcott.
The key idea is that when analytical truth (expressions of language that can be verified
as completely true entirely on the basis of their meaning) has been defined with the
proper foundation, then it becomes totally computable.
The basic architecture for such a system is this:
(a) Finite strings are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true.
Only by stipulating relations between finite strings do finite strings acquire semantic meaning otherwise they remain utterly meaningless. All of these stipulated relations are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true. This makes these finite strings tautologies that we know must be true.
(b) Finite strings are semantically deduced from the above set (sound deductive inference)
Then we have an objective mathematical basis to divide true from untrue and we
can explicitly point to the what are essentially math errors that derive untruth.
We can know that severe climate change really is caused by humans, that there
really was no election fraud in the 2020 election that could have possibly changed
the outcome ... All computed mathematically.
When true(L,x) is mathematically formalized chat bots can take on each and
every social media poster and decimate their disinformation every which way
before it has a chance to start.
This same basic architecture does abolish the notion of incompleteness, not
provable in the system simply mean untrue in the system. It also eliminates
Tarski undefinability because it it smart enough to recognize Tarski's liar
paradox basis and simply reject it as untrue.