On 10/17/2021 4:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 10/17/21 4:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2021 3:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/17/21 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I will put it in simpler terms.
>>>> The only way that we can know with 100% perfectly complete logical
>>>> certainty that an expression of language is true is when its truth
>>>> can be totally verified entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>
>>>> This does provide the foundation of all analytical truth.
>>>
>>> But the flaw is that not all analytical truths are knowable (in some
>>> fields).
>>>
>>
>> Expressions of language that have unknown truth values are simply
>> excluded from the body of knowledge.
>
> But may still be true.
That does not matter they do not count as truth or as knowledge until
after they have been proven true.
Only Wittgenstein understood this: (see page 6 for full quote)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
> And it is also a fact that you might not know if
> something can be in the body of knowledge.
That is very simple if it is true and no one knows it then it is not
knowledge.
>>
>>> Math is built on logical definitions that allow for statements to
>>> exist that we know must be either True of False, but that we are
>>> unable to actually 'prove' by analytical proof which it is.
>>>
>>
>> Any expression of language that cannot be proven true is necessarily
>> untrue, yet possibly also not false. Some expressions of language are
>> simply not bearers of truth values.
>
> WRONG. That statement was disproved a century ago.
This is a misconception based on defining truth and knowledge in an
incoherent way.
> There are statements
> which it is provable that they must be either True or False, but it is
> impossible to actually prove if they are True or False.
>
That is the same kind of crap that has nitwits believing that there was
election fraud when there was no evidence of election fraud.
When a large group of people have a psychotic break from reality on the
basis of Nazi style propaganda the one key thing that would point them
to the actual truth is the idea that no statement is true until after it
has been proven.
> One interesting problem with your position, is it turns out that if you
> won't accept that a statement is a Truth Bearer unless it is provable,
> then there exist statements that you can't tell if they ARE Truth
> Bearers or not, as you can't prove if they are provable. And this
> continues to infinity.
Yes this is correct. When we really don't know it can be quite horrific
in some cases for us to presume that we do know. With my system we have
a finite set of expressions of language that are confirmed to be
definitely true and an infinite set that are unconfirmed as true.
There are some things that are known to be true the rest are unknown to
be true with no emotional attachment to an opinion (belief) inbetween.
There is also a weight of evidence to be applied when we have incomplete
information. When there is no evidence that an expression of language is
true it is still considered possible thus carries negligible weight.
Whatever view objectively carries the most weight of evidence becomes
the current working hypothesis.
>
> THis means that you really can't make a statement to be decided on until
> you prove that it IS decidable, and you can't really ask if it is
> decidable until your prove that its decidability is decidable, and so on.
>
This whole overload of the term "decidable" is far too misleading. The
actual case is that the reason that we cannot decide between yes and no
is that the expression of langugae is simply not truth bearer.
What time is it (yes or no)? I can't decide (make up my mind.)
> This severely limits the power of a system of logic that refuses to
> acknowledge the existance of truth values for statements that are not
> provable.
>
Their truth values don't exist.
"This sentence is not true."
is indeed not true because it is not a truth bearer.
> You seem to be a century behind in the theories of knowledge, probably
> because you refuse to study some of what has been done because you don't
> 'believe' they can be right. You have basically condemned yourself to
> repeat the errors of the past, and don't have the excusses that they did
> back then.
>
I simply have a deeper insight because I studied these things from first
principles rather than even tentatively accept the preexisting framework
of misconceptions.
I have known since 1997 that if Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem and
the halting problem are correct then the basic notion of truth itself
must be broken. Tarski's Undefinability theorem (that directly applies
to the notion of truth itself) confirms this.
> Yes, There ARE realms where you can use that sort of logic, but there
> are also realms where it does not work. You just don't understand where
> that line is and it bashes you in the head and makes you stupid.
It works for the entire body of analytical knowledge: Expressions of
language that can be verified as completely true entirely based on their
meaning.