. . .

September 21st, 2018 11:46 AM

AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLACIES OF IDEALISM, CONFLATION, AND PRETENSE OF KNOWLEDGE

[We] can speak truthfully, we can claim others speak truthfully, but it is our speech about existence, or experience, or the imaginary that ‘is true’ (coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete) or not.

No such thing as ‘truth’ exists that is not a promise by someone that a statement is coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete ENOUGH to satisfy the demand for infallibility.

Existence just exists. It’s state continuously changes (entropy). We can make statements about some state or change in state over some period of time (periodicity, frame), but only our promise to the coherence, consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, and completeness can be claimed as ‘true’ because that is the meaning of truth: testimony.

As to logic, logical must and only can me, constant relations (consistency) between two or more properties (identity) or states (logic). (Because that is all that neurons do: test for differences or their absence as differences.)

Therefore a statement is falsifiable. It is false (certain), true (possible), or undecidable (unknown). if a statement is undecidable, then deductions from it are undecidable, but in formal logic we state that the undecidable is to be treated as false.