Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

I LOVE IT WHEN PEOPLE CHALLENGE ME IN MATH AND LOGIC USING SPECIAL PLEADING. 😉

—“We are talking about logic and mathematics; areas where American low quality of education and rhetoric is irrelevant.

All Statements are: (either True or False)

Whether a statement is undecidable in a system is irrelevant; it is still a statement and thus either T or F. End of story

No amount of poor education from you; knowing no significant logic or mathematics will change that.

As an aside if you foolishly imagine that all of math is either trivial or tautologous then why have you not presented your proofs of : Fermat’s last theorem, The Continuum Hypothesis, Goldbachs Result

I will tell you. It is because you do not even have a high school level of competence and your poor education is devoid of any significant logic and mathematics.”—- Robert Mosimann

CURT’S RESPONSE

That is very interesting because I have a far greater grasp of these things than you do, I am certain. Much of my work involves the falsification of the special pleading employed in mathematics and logic – and particularly the logic of ordinary language.

Is it true that all statements can be demonstrated to be true or false? No. Because a proposition or statement must be decidably true or decidably false, otherwise it is undecidable. And if you understood Kripke in philosophy, and Goedel in mathematics, and even Poincare, Hilbert, Brouwer in math, and Bridgman in physics (and even Mises in economics) then you would know that. And that’s before we bring in Turing.

Decidably true, and Decidably false both require our ability to decide

The trope: [everything in this box is false] is undecidable. It is not true. It is not false. It is undecidable.

So you might engage in special pleading (making excuses) which is common in philosophy, logic, and mathematics, but you cannot testify that an undecidable statement is false without employing special pleading and therefore falsifying your statement.

At best, you can say, “In logic we are concerned only with deductibility, and we can only deduce from true(not false, not undecidable) statements, and therefore out of convention we attribute to the statement itself, that which is a property of its use in deducibility (service as a premise).”

So just as we prohibit special pleading in theology, just as we eliminate special pleading in philosophy, if we eliminate special pleading in logic (the study of constant properties of categories and sets), an if we eliminate special pleading in mathematics (the study of constant relations between types), we are reduced to existential (testimonial or performative) truth as used in science (the study of the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) by the construction of physical and logical methods of measurement that reduce the imperceptible and incomparable and undecidable to that which is perceivable, comparable, and decidable.”

4 – The Analytically True (Tautological).

3 – The (ideally) True (most parsimonious possible in human language)

2 – The truthful (that which we have performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, by the tests of consistency in the categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational-incentive, reciprocal-moral, and fully accounted.)

1 – The truth candidate (that which we have not yet found false but have not yet fully exposed to due diligence)

0 – The undecidable (that which we can say is neither true nor false nor possible)

-1 – The False candidate ( which which is possible in the process of failing due diligence)

-2 – The Falsified (that which has failed due diligence and cannot be otherwise than false.)

-3 – The (ideally) False (the most parsimonious possible in human language)

-4 – The Analytically False (Self Contradictory)

The question then, is why does one need to employ and defend special pleading other than to hide behind a veil of ignorance or deceit?

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine