Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:16:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cc874cd0d2cdbaaee46893aa9ec3b595b9876680@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb0lj5$1c1kh$1@dont-email.me> <vb1o9g$1g7lq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb3t1j$22k1l$1@dont-email.me> <vb4aq6$2r7ok$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb6p9v$3aebo$1@dont-email.me> <vb70k8$3b4ub$2@dont-email.me>
 <vbepsc$q8v6$1@dont-email.me> <vbes94$punj$12@dont-email.me>
 <24f85bcd40f57685aab93d45f15501178e526d0f@i2pn2.org>
 <vbh3td$1a0lq$1@dont-email.me> <vbnbps$2g6vo$2@dont-email.me>
 <vbp3r5$2svm1$1@dont-email.me> <vbphp9$2vfau$4@dont-email.me>
 <818280156725717ae4f231c7c91d116f74a28424@i2pn2.org>
 <vbs19l$3im2p$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 00:16:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1715711"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vbs19l$3im2p$9@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6738
Lines: 121

On 9/11/24 8:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/10/2024 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/10/24 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/10/2024 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-09 17:38:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/7/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-06 23:41:16 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/6/24 8:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/6/2024 6:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-03 12:49:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 12:24:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-01 12:56:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/31/2024 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge is a justified true belief such that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification is sufficient reason to accept the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth of the belief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With a Justified true belief, in the Gettier cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the observer does not know enough to know its true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet it remains stipulated to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My original correction to this was a JTB such that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification necessitates the truth of the belief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With a [Sufficiently Justified belief], it is stipulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the observer does have a sufficient reason to accept
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the truth of the belief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What could be a sufficient reason? Every justification of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief involves other belifs that could be false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For the justification to be sufficient the consequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the belief must be semantically entailed by its justification.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the belief is about something real then its justification
>>>>>>>>>>> involves claims about something real. Nothing real is certain.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is correct.
>>>>>>>>>> My left hand exists right now even if it is
>>>>>>>>>> a mere figment of my own imagination and five
>>>>>>>>>> minutes ago never existed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I don't know and can't (at least now) verify whether your left
>>>>>>>>> hand exists or ever existed I can't regard that as a counter-
>>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the belief is not about something real then it is not clear
>>>>>>>>>>> whether it is correct to call it "belief".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *An axiomatic chain of inference based on this*
>>>>>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says
>>>>>>>>>> that the objects of thought (or, in another interpretation,
>>>>>>>>>> the symbolic expressions) are divided into types, namely:
>>>>>>>>>> individuals, properties of individuals, relations between
>>>>>>>>>> individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears
>>>>>>>>>> the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ
>>>>>>>>>> are not of types fitting together.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
>>>>>>>>>> History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The concepts of knowledge and truth are applicable to the 
>>>>>>>>> knowledge
>>>>>>>>> whether that is what certain peple meant when using those words.
>>>>>>>>> Whether or to what extent that theory can be said to be true is
>>>>>>>>> another problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fundamental architectural overview of all Prolog 
>>>>>>>> implementations
>>>>>>>> is the same True(x) means X is derived by applying Rules (AKA 
>>>>>>>> truth preserving operations) to Facts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But Prolog can't even handle full first order logic, only basic 
>>>>>>> propositions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The logic behind Prolog is restricted enough that incompleteness 
>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>> be differentiated from consistency. It seems that Olcott wants a 
>>>>>> logic
>>>>>> with that impossibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not that incompleteness cannot be differentiated
>>>>> from inconsistency it is that the inconsistency of
>>>>> self-contradiction has been mistaken for undecidability
>>>>> instead of invalid input.
>>>>
>>>> Of course incompleteness can be differentiated from incosistency.
>>>
>>> Self-contradictory expressions are incorrect deemed to be
>>> undecidable expressions instead of invalid expressions.
>>>
>>> Is this "actual piece of shit" "a rainbow" or "a car engine"?
>>> I can't decide, therefore the formal system is incomplete.
>>> (The correct answer is neither, yet the correct answer is not allowed).
>>
>> Except that the statement that Godel 
> 
> I never mentioned Godel stupid.
> 

But you mentioned "Incompleteness", and he is the one that proved it, 
and NOT with a Self-Contradictory statement.

So, are you admitting that Godel didn't use a "Self-contradictory" 
statement, and thus you are wrong, or are you admitting that you are 
just wrong for saying you weren't talking about Godel?