Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic
 knowledge
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 17:03:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <vs9qo4$27rl4$13@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me> <vrh432$39r47$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrhami$3fbja$2@dont-email.me> <vrj9lu$1791p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjn82$1ilbe$2@dont-email.me> <vrmpc1$bnp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrmteo$cvat$6@dont-email.me> <vru000$33rof$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrug71$3gia2$6@dont-email.me> <vs0e9v$1cg8n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs1fda$296sp$3@dont-email.me> <vs3b1d$3aoq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs3iap$9lob$1@dont-email.me>
 <4def165aebe9e5753eeb66673c705370b247a7e3@i2pn2.org>
 <vs4utt$1c1ja$12@dont-email.me>
 <82344d9130ea950af2f0ff091a19265242b9608a@i2pn2.org>
 <vs6u85$39556$16@dont-email.me>
 <567c32439deb84febf4111f4bd0792a9538c1ba1@i2pn2.org>
 <vs902d$1fccq$4@dont-email.me>
 <7a8285459d5e250280bfd48199b311ccf3c33099@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 23:03:48 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="25098614a506fec9a884b9c00c7b5ec8";
	logging-data="2354852"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+An745UVcJlWiDx/mRO/W0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jiNuRQ2Mwgnc9GSImAktCXbXJWU=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250329-4, 3/29/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <7a8285459d5e250280bfd48199b311ccf3c33099@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5551

On 3/29/2025 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/29/25 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/28/2025 4:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/28/25 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/2025 5:33 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:44:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/25 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 5:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-26 18:01:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 3:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am NOT referring to what is merely presented as the body of
>>>>>>>>>> general knowledge, I am referring to the actual body of general
>>>>>>>>>> knowledge. Within this hypothesis it is easy to see that True(X)
>>>>>>>>>> would be infallible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In that case your True(X) is uncomputable and any theory that
>>>>>>>>> contains it is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The body of general knowledge that can be expressed using 
>>>>>>>> language is
>>>>>>>> defined to be complete. The moment that new knowledge that can be
>>>>>>>> expressed in language comes into existence it is added to the set.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No its not. We KNOW there are things we don't know yet, but hope to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As soon as the first person knows new general knowledge and this
>>>>>> knowledge can be written down (unlike the actual direct physical
>>>>>> sensation of smelling a rose)
>>>>>> then this becomes an element of this set of knowledge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, the base of a logic system is STATIC and fixed.
>>>>>> The set of general knowledge that can be expressed in language has 
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> flexibility than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just don't understand the meaning of the words you are using.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True(X) merely tests for membership in this set;
>>>>>>>> (a) Is X a Basic Fact? Then X is true.
>>>>>>> Which makes it not a TRUTH test, but a KNOWLEDGE test, and thus not
>>>>>>> names right.
>>>>>> The set of all general knowledge that can be expressed in language 
>>>>>> is a
>>>>>> subset of all truth and only excludes unknown and unknowable.
>>>>
>>>>> Exactly, it doesn't include the unknown truths and ought to be called
>>>>> Known(X). It is also contradictory since it gives NO both for unknowns
>>>>> and their negation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The key defining aspect of knowledge is that it is true*
>>>
>>> Which has been the eternal debate, how can we tell if some "fact" we 
>>> have discovered is true.
>>>
>>> In FORMAL LOGIC (which you just dismissed) truth has a solid 
>>> definition, and we can formally PROVE some statements to be true and 
>>> formally PROVE that some statements are just false, and thus such 
>>> statements CAN become truely established knowledge. There may also be 
>>> some statements we have not established yet (and maybe can never 
>>> establish in the system) which will remain as "unknown". That doesn't 
>>> mean the statements might not be true or false, just that we don't 
>>> know the answer yet.
>>>
>>
>> This can be incoherent unless complete semantics is fully
>> integrated into the formal system. There is no way that
>> applying ONLY truth preserving operations to basic facts
>> can possibly result in undecidability.
> 
> The problem is that your version of "semantics" is just incompatible 
> with "Formal Logic".
> 

Not at all. A knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy has
an unlimited number of Tarski Meta-language levels as types
in a type hierarchy in a single formal system.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer