I can state anything we do formally. You lack the knowledge to understand what t

I can state anything we do formally. You lack the knowledge to understand what that means. Why do I rely on operational construction from irreducible first principles (laws) rather than arbitrarily asserted axioms? Why don’t we rely on symbols instead using sequences of terms as measurements produced by enumeration, operationilizing, serializing, by adversarial disambiguation? Why do we rely on ternary logic not t/f? Why van we define truth and you can’t?

I happen to be born at the right point in time when the analytic movement failed, physics failed, computation evolved, and artificial intelligence, entered a crisis, magetic imaging gave us the answers, while I designed the first ai for law and basically printed money. Like hayekbut in reverse I set out to fix the law and discovered the problems in economics and physics were misunderstandings of the limits of mathematical reducibility, and the necessity of simulation and baysian accounting.

Now the fact that I built technology companies and made money rather than suffer the poverty and indignity of academic politics is a choice many of my peers made as well.

So I retired in my 40s to work on these questions using the new technology of social media as an infinite pool of free volunteers who were easily used as subjects in experiments in producing demonstrated rather than reported interests.
You see solving the problem if truth wasn’t that hard. Studying lying was. And the study of lying was even more fruitful than intelligence, personality, and more recently haidt’s morality framework.
Anyway, keep trying and maybe you’ll contribute to your field. But you really aren’t suited for discourse at this level.

Reply addressees: @Ket_Math_Dad @EricMorganCoach @Viorp2 @AntonyArakkal1 @Sargon_of_Akkad