( Only a few people will understand this but I”m going to do the best I can in a

( Only a few people will understand this but I”m going to do the best I can in a small number of words ’cause I”m pretty busy writing code at the moment.)

—“Münchhausen trilemma”—

I think it’s nonsense. Since it is justificationary it’s nonsense. In modern terms we simply say that no set of operations can be used to define itself.

But, like the liars paradox, this is a false dilemma. It is impossible to construct a liars paradox using complete sentences. (really)

It is impossible to construct a question of the trilemma using complete sentences. It is also impossible to ask a question consisting of complete information other than stating a tautology.

First, a proof consists of a test of internal consistency, not informational completeness, nor external correspondence. To construct a proof is not to demonstrate a truth. The truth lies in the promise that one’s proof is internally consistent. (really)

Decidability is provided by willingness to act with partial information.

Ergo his very question is a catastrophic error of reasoning by confusing closed axiomatic systems uttered verbally (an analogy) and therefore falsely, with open theoretic systems uttered as truthfully as possible given the universal sparsely distributed information that people must comprehend and act with.

I don’t call these people liars and charlatans as much as idiots. But then, I am lucky to live in an era where we have enough experience with computability that we now understand how stupid all this victorian babble really is.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.