Theme: Decidability

Testimony may be truthful, untruthful, false, or undecidable. Not just true or f

Testimony may be truthful, untruthful, false, or undecidable. Not just true or false.

Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 01:41:33 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243714815102681094

Reply addressees: @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243712775093977088

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

@AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K Every reply so far is in p-law (testimony). There is no bootstrapping problem to tests of constant relations in every dimension of the perceivable. You positied a deception. I said it’s a deception. Whether because you’re a carrier or originator of deception remains to be seen.

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1243712775093977088

March 28, 2020
The liars paradox is a grammatical error

The liars paradox is a grammatical error.

Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 01:33:54 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243712888205967360

Reply addressees: @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243711631416348674

March 28, 2020
So again, this is a sophism. There is no paradox to in the liars box. People say

So again, this is a sophism. There is no paradox to in the liars box. People say things, and mean what they say. The liar’s paradox (as kripke, godel et all addressed), is not a paradox – it is a deception that takes advantage of grammatical fragility in ordinary speech.

Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 00:54:20 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243702933964849152

Reply addressees: @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243702239505588225

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

@AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K (Sorry, I took the ‘statement’ in your question as a variable, not a grammatical deceit.)

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1243702239505588225

March 28, 2020
3) If it is testifiable, then the question is whether it satisfies the demand fo

3) If it is testifiable, then the question is whether it satisfies the demand for infallibility for the context in question. If it satisfies the demand for infallibility within the limits of involuntary restitution, then one has spoken truthfully and reciprocally.

Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 00:45:16 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243700649952514055

Reply addressees: @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243700261916413954

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

@AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K 2) P-Law tests falsify for ignorance, error, bias, pretense of knowledge, loading, framing, obscuring, fictionalisms, decets (fictions), false promises and frauds. Not to find ideal truth, but to eliminate fraud.

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1243700261916413954

March 28, 2020
Either statements are testifiable or they are not. If they are not testifiable o

Either statements are testifiable or they are not. If they are not testifiable one cannot make a truth claim. For a statement to be testifiable requires it survive the tests of all dimensions, because the only closure available is falsification of all dimensions.
Sorry. Just is.

Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 14:31:31 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243546195554971655

Reply addressees: @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243545710756270089

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

@AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K The fact that you’re still stuck in the early 20th c because philosophy was a dead end for truth, and limited to choice (or deceit) is simply that you’ve overinvested in a malinvestment. Reformation is extremely expensive. And humans protect investments (loss aversion).

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1243545710756270089

March 27, 2020
You see, I understand your theological substitution. I always have. I just haven

You see, I understand your theological substitution. I always have. I just haven’t taken the time to fully entrap you in demonstrating it.

The only way to falsify P is to run cases: tests. All you will discover is undecidability (testimony), where you find falsehood (inference).

Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 14:27:03 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243545071791886338

Reply addressees: @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243544325344169989

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

@AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic?

The fact that you counter signal closure when there is none w/o the full spectrum of falsifications (in P) puts a lie to the whole thing you call ‘rationalism’.
You never seek to understand. That’s why you fail.

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1243544325344169989

March 27, 2020
How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic? The fact that yo

How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic?

The fact that you counter signal closure when there is none w/o the full spectrum of falsifications (in P) puts a lie to the whole thing you call ‘rationalism’.
You never seek to understand. That’s why you fail.

Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 14:24:05 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243544325344169989

Reply addressees: @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243536395584581635

March 27, 2020
P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commen

P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible) thought.

Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 13:35:13 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243532024868200454

Reply addressees: @KANTBOT20K

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243531453692076033

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

@KANTBOT20K SCIENCES: 1. Formal(Logics: logic, mathematics, algorithmic, operational). 2. Physical (the laws of nature). 3. Psychological (cognitive science), and 4. Social (Social science: economics, law, politics, group strategy).

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1243531453692076033

March 27, 2020
that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness. So in P we

… that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness.

So in P we use a ‘grammar’ to refer to the Vocabulary, logic, syntax of a paradigm. And when we use the term “the Grammars’ we mean the spectrum of those grammars.

Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 13:21:02 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243528455318355973

Reply addressees: @KANTBOT20K @Doland58655726

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243528355917553664

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

@KANTBOT20K @Doland58655726 So a Grammar refers to the Paradigm (permissible dimensions of perception, cognition, and action), the Names, Operations, and Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, story organization) and the LOGIC (constant relations) …

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1243528355917553664

March 27, 2020
Demarcation. “Science”. Science provides decidability. Now, depends upon whether

Demarcation. “Science”. Science provides decidability. Now, depends upon whether you consider science a via negativa like the law and logics, or via positiva like philosophy, myth, and theology

Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 11:58:32 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243507696524984321

Reply addressees: @Disside20128775 @KANTBOT20K

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243433680107966466

March 27, 2020