....14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)

*I will paraphrase his quote using the simplest terms*

Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
there is something wrong with a formal system that cannot correctly
determine whether X is true or false.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 04/17/2024 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>
> *I will paraphrase his quote using the simplest terms*
>
> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
> there is something wrong with a formal system that cannot correctly
> determine whether X is true or false.
>
>

I like to read it more as Mirimanoff and the extra-ordinary.

In the early 20'th century, Mirimanoff was very influential in
what became set theory. He was very well-known in the small circle
that is the usual introduction, and should be more, today.

Regularity, a usual ruliality, as Well-Foundedness, has a
delicate interplay and contraposition with Well-Orderedness,
both regular and rulial, yet in the infinite, that the
antinomies sort of make for that for arithmetic, that
both increment is an operator, and division is an operator,
and while they join as they come together in the field,
in the modular, they represent yet opposite concerns.

So, Mirimanoff's extra-ordinary, is another way to look
at Goedel's incompleteness, that the truths about the
objects, i.e. their proofs or models, do have an
extra-ordinary existence, arising from the resolution
of what would otherwise be the contradiction, the paradox,
making for why Goedel's result is as well that there
_is_ an extra-ordinary infinity, plainly courtesy the mind,
and simple ponderance of alternatives in quantifiers
and the basis of fundamental logic.

So, it's not "wrong", instead, it's "better".

I like to think of it this way as I am entirely pleased
about it and it very well follows from what I've studied
of the development of the canon of logic as it was and is,
and, will be.

Warm regards, E.S., bonjour,

--
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson

On 4/17/2024 3:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/17/2024 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>
>> *I will paraphrase his quote using the simplest terms*
>>
>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
>> there is something wrong with a formal system that cannot correctly
>> determine whether X is true or false.
>>
>>
>
> I like to read it more as Mirimanoff and the extra-ordinary.
>
> In the early 20'th century, Mirimanoff was very influential in
> what became set theory.  He was very well-known in the small circle
> that is the usual introduction, and should be more, today.
>
> Regularity, a usual ruliality, as Well-Foundedness, has a
> delicate interplay and contraposition with Well-Orderedness,
> both regular and rulial, yet in the infinite, that the
> antinomies sort of make for that for arithmetic, that
> both increment is an operator, and division is an operator,
> and while they join as they come together in the field,
> in the modular, they represent yet opposite concerns.
>
> So, Mirimanoff's extra-ordinary, is another way to look
> at Goedel's incompleteness, that the truths about the
> objects, i.e. their proofs or models, do have an
> extra-ordinary existence, arising from the resolution
> of what would otherwise be the contradiction, the paradox,
> making for why Goedel's result is as well that there
> _is_ an extra-ordinary infinity, plainly courtesy the mind,
> and simple ponderance of alternatives in quantifiers
> and the basis of fundamental logic.
>
> So, it's not "wrong", instead, it's "better".
>
> I like to think of it this way as I am entirely pleased
> about it and it very well follows from what I've studied
> of the development of the canon of logic as it was and is,
> and, will be.
>
>
> Warm regards, E.S., bonjour,
>
>

I am interested in foundations of logic only so that that I can derive
the generic notion of correct reasoning for the purpose of practical
application in daily life.

For example the claim that election fraud changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election could be understood as untrue as if it was
an error in arithmetic.

Only because humans have a very terribly abysmal understanding of
the notion of truth is propaganda based on the Nazi model possible.

The Tarski Undefinability theorem seems to support Nazi propaganda
in that it seems to cause all of the world's best experts to uniformly
agree that no one can ever possibly accurately specify exactly what
True(L,x) really is.

If we cannot ever accurately know what truth is then we can never
consistently correctly divide truth from dangerous lies. This is
currently having horrific consequences.

> --
> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/17/24 3:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>
> *I will paraphrase his quote using the simplest terms*
>
> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
> there is something wrong with a formal system that cannot correctly
> determine whether X is true or false.
>
>

Nope, that is NOT what he means, and shows your utter misunderstanding
of the logic.

Your WHOLE logic system is just based on STRAWMWN like this, which show
that you idea about "correct reasoning" are not correct, and are not
actually based on actual reasoning.

This has been pointed out to you, and your continued repeating them just
shows your complete stupidity, and that you are nothing but a pitiful
hypocritical pathologically liar.

On 4/17/24 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/17/2024 3:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 04/17/2024 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>
>>> *I will paraphrase his quote using the simplest terms*
>>>
>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
>>> there is something wrong with a formal system that cannot correctly
>>> determine whether X is true or false.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I like to read it more as Mirimanoff and the extra-ordinary.
>>
>> In the early 20'th century, Mirimanoff was very influential in
>> what became set theory.  He was very well-known in the small circle
>> that is the usual introduction, and should be more, today.
>>
>> Regularity, a usual ruliality, as Well-Foundedness, has a
>> delicate interplay and contraposition with Well-Orderedness,
>> both regular and rulial, yet in the infinite, that the
>> antinomies sort of make for that for arithmetic, that
>> both increment is an operator, and division is an operator,
>> and while they join as they come together in the field,
>> in the modular, they represent yet opposite concerns.
>>
>> So, Mirimanoff's extra-ordinary, is another way to look
>> at Goedel's incompleteness, that the truths about the
>> objects, i.e. their proofs or models, do have an
>> extra-ordinary existence, arising from the resolution
>> of what would otherwise be the contradiction, the paradox,
>> making for why Goedel's result is as well that there
>> _is_ an extra-ordinary infinity, plainly courtesy the mind,
>> and simple ponderance of alternatives in quantifiers
>> and the basis of fundamental logic.
>>
>> So, it's not "wrong", instead, it's "better".
>>
>> I like to think of it this way as I am entirely pleased
>> about it and it very well follows from what I've studied
>> of the development of the canon of logic as it was and is,
>> and, will be.
>>
>>
>> Warm regards, E.S., bonjour,
>>
>>
>
> I am interested in foundations of logic only so that that I can derive
> the generic notion of correct reasoning for the purpose of practical
> application in daily life.
>
> For example the claim that election fraud changed the outcome of the
> 2020 presidential election could be understood as untrue as if it was
> an error in arithmetic.

No, the Truth or Falsehood of that statement would be based on looking
at the ACTUAL OBSERVATION of how much "fraud" could be shown to exist,
that isn't something determined by "analytical logic" but by forensic
investigation, by OBSERVATION. (just the opposite of what you try to claim).

>
> Only because humans have a very terribly abysmal understanding of
> the notion of truth is propaganda based on the Nazi model possible.

No, it is based on people beleiving propaganda over facts.

>
> The Tarski Undefinability theorem seems to support Nazi propaganda
> in that it seems to cause all of the world's best experts to uniformly
> agree that no one can ever possibly accurately specify exactly what
> True(L,x) really is.

Nope, but YOUR claim would be more of a support for that then his.

>
> If we cannot ever accurately know what truth is then we can never
> consistently correctly divide truth from dangerous lies. This is
> currently having horrific consequences.

But that isn't what Tarsli said, but your claim is exactly what the
people you try to decry use.

Your logic is based on LYING, so it actually PROMOTES the lies that you
claim to be fighting.

YOUR ignoring of the actual facts presented to you validates the
ignoring of the facts by those that you claim to be fighting.

>
>> --
>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
>>
>

On 4/17/2024 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/17/24 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/17/2024 3:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 04/17/2024 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>
>>>> *I will paraphrase his quote using the simplest terms*
>>>>
>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
>>>> there is something wrong with a formal system that cannot correctly
>>>> determine whether X is true or false.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I like to read it more as Mirimanoff and the extra-ordinary.
>>>
>>> In the early 20'th century, Mirimanoff was very influential in
>>> what became set theory.  He was very well-known in the small circle
>>> that is the usual introduction, and should be more, today.
>>>
>>> Regularity, a usual ruliality, as Well-Foundedness, has a
>>> delicate interplay and contraposition with Well-Orderedness,
>>> both regular and rulial, yet in the infinite, that the
>>> antinomies sort of make for that for arithmetic, that
>>> both increment is an operator, and division is an operator,
>>> and while they join as they come together in the field,
>>> in the modular, they represent yet opposite concerns.
>>>
>>> So, Mirimanoff's extra-ordinary, is another way to look
>>> at Goedel's incompleteness, that the truths about the
>>> objects, i.e. their proofs or models, do have an
>>> extra-ordinary existence, arising from the resolution
>>> of what would otherwise be the contradiction, the paradox,
>>> making for why Goedel's result is as well that there
>>> _is_ an extra-ordinary infinity, plainly courtesy the mind,
>>> and simple ponderance of alternatives in quantifiers
>>> and the basis of fundamental logic.
>>>
>>> So, it's not "wrong", instead, it's "better".
>>>
>>> I like to think of it this way as I am entirely pleased
>>> about it and it very well follows from what I've studied
>>> of the development of the canon of logic as it was and is,
>>> and, will be.
>>>
>>>
>>> Warm regards, E.S., bonjour,
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I am interested in foundations of logic only so that that I can derive
>> the generic notion of correct reasoning for the purpose of practical
>> application in daily life.
>>
>> For example the claim that election fraud changed the outcome of the
>> 2020 presidential election could be understood as untrue as if it was
>> an error in arithmetic.
>
> No, the Truth or Falsehood of that statement would be based on looking
> at the ACTUAL OBSERVATION of how much "fraud" could be shown to exist,
> that isn't something determined by "analytical logic" but by forensic
> investigation, by OBSERVATION. (just the opposite of what you try to
> claim).
>

Although that is correct the problem is that 45% of the electorate
do not understand that is correct.

When we have a formal system that can explain how and why that is
correct in a quadrillion different ways at every language and
education level, responding to every social media post in real time
relentlessly then we will have the resources required.

Currently most of the experts seems to agree that True(L, x)
cannot possibly be consistently and coherently defined thus
there is no objectively discernible difference between verified
facts and dangerous lies.

>>
>> Only because humans have a very terribly abysmal understanding of
>> the notion of truth is propaganda based on the Nazi model possible.
>
> No, it is based on people beleiving propaganda over facts.
>
>>
>> The Tarski Undefinability theorem seems to support Nazi propaganda
>> in that it seems to cause all of the world's best experts to uniformly
>> agree that no one can ever possibly accurately specify exactly what
>> True(L,x) really is.
>
>
> Nope, but YOUR claim would be more of a support for that then his.
>
>
>>
>> If we cannot ever accurately know what truth is then we can never
>> consistently correctly divide truth from dangerous lies. This is
>> currently having horrific consequences.
>
> But that isn't what Tarsli said, but your claim is exactly what the
> people you try to decry use.
>
> Your logic is based on LYING, so it actually PROMOTES the lies that you
> claim to be fighting.
>
> YOUR ignoring of the actual facts presented to you validates the
> ignoring of the facts by those that you claim to be fighting.
>
>
>>
>>> --
>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
>>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/17/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/17/2024 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/17/24 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/17/2024 3:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 04/17/2024 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>> similar
>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>
>>>>> *I will paraphrase his quote using the simplest terms*
>>>>>
>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
>>>>> there is something wrong with a formal system that cannot correctly
>>>>> determine whether X is true or false.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I like to read it more as Mirimanoff and the extra-ordinary.
>>>>
>>>> In the early 20'th century, Mirimanoff was very influential in
>>>> what became set theory.  He was very well-known in the small circle
>>>> that is the usual introduction, and should be more, today.
>>>>
>>>> Regularity, a usual ruliality, as Well-Foundedness, has a
>>>> delicate interplay and contraposition with Well-Orderedness,
>>>> both regular and rulial, yet in the infinite, that the
>>>> antinomies sort of make for that for arithmetic, that
>>>> both increment is an operator, and division is an operator,
>>>> and while they join as they come together in the field,
>>>> in the modular, they represent yet opposite concerns.
>>>>
>>>> So, Mirimanoff's extra-ordinary, is another way to look
>>>> at Goedel's incompleteness, that the truths about the
>>>> objects, i.e. their proofs or models, do have an
>>>> extra-ordinary existence, arising from the resolution
>>>> of what would otherwise be the contradiction, the paradox,
>>>> making for why Goedel's result is as well that there
>>>> _is_ an extra-ordinary infinity, plainly courtesy the mind,
>>>> and simple ponderance of alternatives in quantifiers
>>>> and the basis of fundamental logic.
>>>>
>>>> So, it's not "wrong", instead, it's "better".
>>>>
>>>> I like to think of it this way as I am entirely pleased
>>>> about it and it very well follows from what I've studied
>>>> of the development of the canon of logic as it was and is,
>>>> and, will be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Warm regards, E.S., bonjour,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am interested in foundations of logic only so that that I can derive
>>> the generic notion of correct reasoning for the purpose of practical
>>> application in daily life.
>>>
>>> For example the claim that election fraud changed the outcome of the
>>> 2020 presidential election could be understood as untrue as if it was
>>> an error in arithmetic.
>>
>> No, the Truth or Falsehood of that statement would be based on looking
>> at the ACTUAL OBSERVATION of how much "fraud" could be shown to exist,
>> that isn't something determined by "analytical logic" but by forensic
>> investigation, by OBSERVATION. (just the opposite of what you try to
>> claim).
>>
>
> Although that is correct the problem is that 45% of the electorate
> do not understand that is correct.

And thus, your arguement does nothing to fix the actual problem.

>
> When we have a formal system that can explain how and why that is
> correct in a quadrillion different ways at every language and
> education level, responding to every social media post in real time
> relentlessly then we will have the resources required.

Except that the key isn't what a formal system can show, as the key is
the basic evidence, that would need to be the axioms of the formal system.

>
> Currently most of the experts seems to agree that True(L, x)
> cannot possibly be consistently and coherently defined thus
> there is no objectively discernible difference between verified
> facts and dangerous lies.

Nope. That is just a stupid lie.

True(L, x) as a predicate of logic can not be defined.

That does NOT say we can not objectived define what is true and what is
false, it says that there exist a few (and generally unusual) statements
that we csn not determine if they meet the definition of True or False.

The PROPERTY of Truth has a firm definition, what can't be defined is
the PREDICATE.

Your stupidity that can't understand the difference just illustrates the
problem.

You yourelf beleive your own lies and refuse to look at the actual
truth, just like the people you complain about.

YOU prove the difficulty of the problem, by being the poster child of it.

>
>
>>>
>>> Only because humans have a very terribly abysmal understanding of
>>> the notion of truth is propaganda based on the Nazi model possible.
>>
>> No, it is based on people beleiving propaganda over facts.
>>
>>>
>>> The Tarski Undefinability theorem seems to support Nazi propaganda
>>> in that it seems to cause all of the world's best experts to uniformly
>>> agree that no one can ever possibly accurately specify exactly what
>>> True(L,x) really is.
>>
>>
>> Nope, but YOUR claim would be more of a support for that then his.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If we cannot ever accurately know what truth is then we can never
>>> consistently correctly divide truth from dangerous lies. This is
>>> currently having horrific consequences.
>>
>> But that isn't what Tarsli said, but your claim is exactly what the
>> people you try to decry use.
>>
>> Your logic is based on LYING, so it actually PROMOTES the lies that
>> you claim to be fighting.
>>
>> YOUR ignoring of the actual facts presented to you validates the
>> ignoring of the facts by those that you claim to be fighting.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 4/17/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/17/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/17/2024 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/17/24 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2024 3:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 04/17/2024 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar
>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I will paraphrase his quote using the simplest terms*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
>>>>>> there is something wrong with a formal system that cannot correctly
>>>>>> determine whether X is true or false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I like to read it more as Mirimanoff and the extra-ordinary.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the early 20'th century, Mirimanoff was very influential in
>>>>> what became set theory.  He was very well-known in the small circle
>>>>> that is the usual introduction, and should be more, today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regularity, a usual ruliality, as Well-Foundedness, has a
>>>>> delicate interplay and contraposition with Well-Orderedness,
>>>>> both regular and rulial, yet in the infinite, that the
>>>>> antinomies sort of make for that for arithmetic, that
>>>>> both increment is an operator, and division is an operator,
>>>>> and while they join as they come together in the field,
>>>>> in the modular, they represent yet opposite concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Mirimanoff's extra-ordinary, is another way to look
>>>>> at Goedel's incompleteness, that the truths about the
>>>>> objects, i.e. their proofs or models, do have an
>>>>> extra-ordinary existence, arising from the resolution
>>>>> of what would otherwise be the contradiction, the paradox,
>>>>> making for why Goedel's result is as well that there
>>>>> _is_ an extra-ordinary infinity, plainly courtesy the mind,
>>>>> and simple ponderance of alternatives in quantifiers
>>>>> and the basis of fundamental logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, it's not "wrong", instead, it's "better".
>>>>>
>>>>> I like to think of it this way as I am entirely pleased
>>>>> about it and it very well follows from what I've studied
>>>>> of the development of the canon of logic as it was and is,
>>>>> and, will be.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Warm regards, E.S., bonjour,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am interested in foundations of logic only so that that I can derive
>>>> the generic notion of correct reasoning for the purpose of practical
>>>> application in daily life.
>>>>
>>>> For example the claim that election fraud changed the outcome of the
>>>> 2020 presidential election could be understood as untrue as if it was
>>>> an error in arithmetic.
>>>
>>> No, the Truth or Falsehood of that statement would be based on
>>> looking at the ACTUAL OBSERVATION of how much "fraud" could be shown
>>> to exist, that isn't something determined by "analytical logic" but
>>> by forensic investigation, by OBSERVATION. (just the opposite of what
>>> you try to claim).
>>>
>>
>> Although that is correct the problem is that 45% of the electorate
>> do not understand that is correct.
>
> And thus, your arguement does nothing to fix the actual problem.
>
>>
>> When we have a formal system that can explain how and why that is
>> correct in a quadrillion different ways at every language and
>> education level, responding to every social media post in real time
>> relentlessly then we will have the resources required.
>
> Except that the key isn't what a formal system can show, as the key is
> the basic evidence, that would need to be the axioms of the formal system.
>

The "axioms" of the formal system would be an an accurate model of the
current actual world. Such a system would hypothetically be aware of
every single detail of evidence that there was woefully insufficient
evidence of election fraud that could have possibly changed the
outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

It would know an fully understand every single word that was
publicly stated about election fraud this includes every single
word that anyone ever said in of the election fraud curt cases.

It would be able to very easily reverse-engineer every subtle
nuance of a detail of exactly how Hitler's "big lie" model
was applied.

>>
>> Currently most of the experts seems to agree that True(L, x)
>> cannot possibly be consistently and coherently defined thus
>> there is no objectively discernible difference between verified
>> facts and dangerous lies.
>
>
> Nope. That is just a stupid lie.
>

Notice the keyword "consistently" that means 100% of ALL
the time in every single case.

> True(L, x) as a predicate of logic can not be defined.
>
> That does NOT say we can not objectived define what is true and what is
> false, it says that there exist a few (and generally unusual) statements
> that we csn not determine if they meet the definition of True or False.
>

Thus not "consistently" 100% of ALL the time in every single case, just
like I said. I have a friend with an actual 143 IQ that is completely
certain that the Earth is flat.

Too many people do not understand the difference between reasonably
plausible and unreasonably implausible.

> The PROPERTY of Truth has a firm definition, what can't be defined is
> the PREDICATE.
>

It it cannot be formalized then what the Hell can a firm definition
possibly be? We need a definition such that every liar will know that
their lies are as easily detectable as arithmetic errors with absolutely
zero subjective judgement involved.

If we don't have that then the goofies will always claim political bias.

If we make it like I claim that 2 + 3 = 5 and they claim "political
bias" they know that other goofies won't even accept that.

> Your stupidity that can't understand the difference just illustrates the
> problem.
>
> You yourelf beleive your own lies and refuse to look at the actual
> truth, just like the people you complain about.
>

Try and show the details of exactly how
"The PROPERTY of Truth has a firm definition"

Such that we can convince 95% of the 45% of the electorate that
believe that election fraud changed the outcome of the 2020
presidential election.

The current definition is good enough for geniuses that want the
truth yet woefully inadequate to nullify Nazi styled propaganda.

Making True(L,x) computable could do this. Nothing less than this
could be nearly as effective.

> YOU prove the difficulty of the problem, by being the poster child of it.
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Only because humans have a very terribly abysmal understanding of
>>>> the notion of truth is propaganda based on the Nazi model possible.
>>>
>>> No, it is based on people beleiving propaganda over facts.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Tarski Undefinability theorem seems to support Nazi propaganda
>>>> in that it seems to cause all of the world's best experts to uniformly
>>>> agree that no one can ever possibly accurately specify exactly what
>>>> True(L,x) really is.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, but YOUR claim would be more of a support for that then his.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we cannot ever accurately know what truth is then we can never
>>>> consistently correctly divide truth from dangerous lies. This is
>>>> currently having horrific consequences.
>>>
>>> But that isn't what Tarsli said, but your claim is exactly what the
>>> people you try to decry use.
>>>
>>> Your logic is based on LYING, so it actually PROMOTES the lies that
>>> you claim to be fighting.
>>>
>>> YOUR ignoring of the actual facts presented to you validates the
>>> ignoring of the facts by those that you claim to be fighting.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 4/17/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/17/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/17/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/17/2024 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/24 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/17/2024 3:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/17/2024 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *I will paraphrase his quote using the simplest terms*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
>>>>>>> there is something wrong with a formal system that cannot correctly
>>>>>>> determine whether X is true or false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like to read it more as Mirimanoff and the extra-ordinary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the early 20'th century, Mirimanoff was very influential in
>>>>>> what became set theory.  He was very well-known in the small circle
>>>>>> that is the usual introduction, and should be more, today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regularity, a usual ruliality, as Well-Foundedness, has a
>>>>>> delicate interplay and contraposition with Well-Orderedness,
>>>>>> both regular and rulial, yet in the infinite, that the
>>>>>> antinomies sort of make for that for arithmetic, that
>>>>>> both increment is an operator, and division is an operator,
>>>>>> and while they join as they come together in the field,
>>>>>> in the modular, they represent yet opposite concerns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, Mirimanoff's extra-ordinary, is another way to look
>>>>>> at Goedel's incompleteness, that the truths about the
>>>>>> objects, i.e. their proofs or models, do have an
>>>>>> extra-ordinary existence, arising from the resolution
>>>>>> of what would otherwise be the contradiction, the paradox,
>>>>>> making for why Goedel's result is as well that there
>>>>>> _is_ an extra-ordinary infinity, plainly courtesy the mind,
>>>>>> and simple ponderance of alternatives in quantifiers
>>>>>> and the basis of fundamental logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, it's not "wrong", instead, it's "better".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like to think of it this way as I am entirely pleased
>>>>>> about it and it very well follows from what I've studied
>>>>>> of the development of the canon of logic as it was and is,
>>>>>> and, will be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warm regards, E.S., bonjour,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am interested in foundations of logic only so that that I can derive
>>>>> the generic notion of correct reasoning for the purpose of practical
>>>>> application in daily life.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example the claim that election fraud changed the outcome of the
>>>>> 2020 presidential election could be understood as untrue as if it was
>>>>> an error in arithmetic.
>>>>
>>>> No, the Truth or Falsehood of that statement would be based on
>>>> looking at the ACTUAL OBSERVATION of how much "fraud" could be shown
>>>> to exist, that isn't something determined by "analytical logic" but
>>>> by forensic investigation, by OBSERVATION. (just the opposite of
>>>> what you try to claim).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Although that is correct the problem is that 45% of the electorate
>>> do not understand that is correct.
>>
>> And thus, your arguement does nothing to fix the actual problem.
>>
>>>
>>> When we have a formal system that can explain how and why that is
>>> correct in a quadrillion different ways at every language and
>>> education level, responding to every social media post in real time
>>> relentlessly then we will have the resources required.
>>
>> Except that the key isn't what a formal system can show, as the key is
>> the basic evidence, that would need to be the axioms of the formal
>> system.
>>
>
> The "axioms" of the formal system would be an an accurate model of the
> current actual world. Such a system would hypothetically be aware of
> every single detail of evidence that there was woefully insufficient
> evidence of election fraud that could have possibly changed the
> outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

And since the core of the disagreement is with the MODEL, the logic
afterwords doesn't matter.

Just like YOU refuse to look at the fact presented to you, because you
"know" what the truth is, so do the election deniers "know" what the
facts are to the case.

Why would people beleive your system when they "KNOW" that it has the
wrong facts.

YOU prove this behavior by your own.

>
> It would know an fully understand every single word that was
> publicly stated about election fraud this includes every single
> word that anyone ever said in of the election fraud curt cases.

But, if people don't beleive it, they will not believe it.

Claiming something is true doesn't make it so.

>
> It would be able to very easily reverse-engineer every subtle
> nuance of a detail of exactly how Hitler's "big lie" model
> was applied.

You put too much faith in your ability to derive logic, and not enough
understanding in psychology. Your become the proof that your system can
not work, as YOU insist on things that have been conclusively proven
wrong, but you continue to believe them.

>
>>>
>>> Currently most of the experts seems to agree that True(L, x)
>>> cannot possibly be consistently and coherently defined thus
>>> there is no objectively discernible difference between verified
>>> facts and dangerous lies.
>>
>>
>> Nope. That is just a stupid lie.
>>
>
> Notice the keyword "consistently" that means 100% of ALL
> the time in every single case.

Which is IMPOSSIBLE.

The case that it can not handle has been shown to you, but you just
refuese to look at it, because you can not look at it and keep your
broken world view, so you think it must be wrong.

Fundamentally, you just don't understand the things you are talking about.

>
>> True(L, x) as a predicate of logic can not be defined.
>>
>> That does NOT say we can not objectived define what is true and what
>> is false, it says that there exist a few (and generally unusual)
>> statements that we csn not determine if they meet the definition of
>> True or False.
>>
>
> Thus not "consistently" 100% of ALL the time in every single case, just
> like I said. I have a friend with an actual 143 IQ that is completely
> certain that the Earth is flat.

Right, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the truth for ALL cases.

>
> Too many people do not understand the difference between reasonably
> plausible and unreasonably implausible.

Like you.

>
>> The PROPERTY of Truth has a firm definition, what can't be defined is
>> the PREDICATE.
>>
>
> It it cannot be formalized then what the Hell can a firm definition
> possibly be? We need a definition such that every liar will know that
> their lies are as easily detectable as arithmetic errors with absolutely
> zero subjective judgement involved.

Which just shows you don't understand the difference between defining
what we mean by something being true, which we can do, and defining a
PREDICATE that tells us, always, if a statement is true.

NO ONE (except it seems you) seems to claim that it is impossible to
tell, for most statements, if they are true or not. If we can show the
logical steps connecting the statement to truthmakers, then it is true,
if we can show teh logical steps connecting the complement of the
statement to truthmakers, it is false. If we can't do either, we do not
know if the statement is true or false, and there will always be such
statements.

>
> If we don't have that then the goofies will always claim political bias.

On 04/17/2024 03:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/17/24 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/17/2024 3:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 04/17/2024 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>
>>>> *I will paraphrase his quote using the simplest terms*
>>>>
>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
>>>> there is something wrong with a formal system that cannot correctly
>>>> determine whether X is true or false.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I like to read it more as Mirimanoff and the extra-ordinary.
>>>
>>> In the early 20'th century, Mirimanoff was very influential in
>>> what became set theory. He was very well-known in the small circle
>>> that is the usual introduction, and should be more, today.
>>>
>>> Regularity, a usual ruliality, as Well-Foundedness, has a
>>> delicate interplay and contraposition with Well-Orderedness,
>>> both regular and rulial, yet in the infinite, that the
>>> antinomies sort of make for that for arithmetic, that
>>> both increment is an operator, and division is an operator,
>>> and while they join as they come together in the field,
>>> in the modular, they represent yet opposite concerns.
>>>
>>> So, Mirimanoff's extra-ordinary, is another way to look
>>> at Goedel's incompleteness, that the truths about the
>>> objects, i.e. their proofs or models, do have an
>>> extra-ordinary existence, arising from the resolution
>>> of what would otherwise be the contradiction, the paradox,
>>> making for why Goedel's result is as well that there
>>> _is_ an extra-ordinary infinity, plainly courtesy the mind,
>>> and simple ponderance of alternatives in quantifiers
>>> and the basis of fundamental logic.
>>>
>>> So, it's not "wrong", instead, it's "better".
>>>
>>> I like to think of it this way as I am entirely pleased
>>> about it and it very well follows from what I've studied
>>> of the development of the canon of logic as it was and is,
>>> and, will be.
>>>
>>>
>>> Warm regards, E.S., bonjour,
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I am interested in foundations of logic only so that that I can derive
>> the generic notion of correct reasoning for the purpose of practical
>> application in daily life.
>>
>> For example the claim that election fraud changed the outcome of the
>> 2020 presidential election could be understood as untrue as if it was
>> an error in arithmetic.
>
> No, the Truth or Falsehood of that statement would be based on looking
> at the ACTUAL OBSERVATION of how much "fraud" could be shown to exist,
> that isn't something determined by "analytical logic" but by forensic
> investigation, by OBSERVATION. (just the opposite of what you try to
> claim).
>
>>
>> Only because humans have a very terribly abysmal understanding of
>> the notion of truth is propaganda based on the Nazi model possible.
>
> No, it is based on people beleiving propaganda over facts.
>
>>
>> The Tarski Undefinability theorem seems to support Nazi propaganda
>> in that it seems to cause all of the world's best experts to uniformly
>> agree that no one can ever possibly accurately specify exactly what
>> True(L,x) really is.
>
>
> Nope, but YOUR claim would be more of a support for that then his.
>
>
>>
>> If we cannot ever accurately know what truth is then we can never
>> consistently correctly divide truth from dangerous lies. This is
>> currently having horrific consequences.
>
> But that isn't what Tarsli said, but your claim is exactly what the
> people you try to decry use.
>
> Your logic is based on LYING, so it actually PROMOTES the lies that you
> claim to be fighting.
>
> YOUR ignoring of the actual facts presented to you validates the
> ignoring of the facts by those that you claim to be fighting.
>
>
>>
>>> --
>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
>>>
>>
>

So, it's a science, then.

Science, has observables, reproducibles: and falsifiables.

Much like statistics: hypothesis: invalidatable.

If you want truth, it's "the truth".

Aristotle's quite a Platonist if you consult both
the _a priori_ and _a posteriori_, quite Hegelian,
who does have a brief metaphysics, for exactly what it is.

Mirimanoff is really great, and the extra-ordinary is
an important and profound concept with regards to
infinity and the very real nature of mathematical infinity,
and that there are extra-ordinary laws of large, these
days explored as for example the doubling spaces and
my three definitions of mathematical continuity.

The three definitions of mathematical continuity, ....

It's also for a theory of truth, "A Theory", and
it's a very strong logicist positivist mathematical platonism.

So, it's a science: about the logic, about the truth.