home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.ai.philosophy      Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this      59,235 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 58,975 of 59,235   
   olcott to Mikko   
   =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Why_do_people_ignore_the   
   05 Jan 26 08:54:07   
   
   XPost: sci.logic, sci.math, comp.theory   
   XPost: sci.lang   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/5/2026 8:20 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 05/01/2026 16:04, olcott wrote:   
   >   
   >> ...there is also a close relationship with the “liar” antinomy,14 ...   
   >> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a   
   >> similar undecidability proof...   
   >> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which   
   >> asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)   
   >>   
   >> Gödel, Kurt 1931.   
   >> On Formally Undecidable Propositions of   
   >> Principia Mathematica And Related Systems   
   >>   
   >> Even when Gödel directly admits that it is   
   >> as simple as that and people see that he   
   >> admitted it they still deny this.   
   >>   
   >> G := (F ⊬ G) // where A := B means A "is defined as" B   
   >>   
   >> LP := ~True(LP) // "This sentence is not true".   
   >>   
   >> The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy   
   >>   
   >> epistemological antinomy   
   >> An epistemological antinomy is a fundamental,   
   >> unresolvable contradiction within human reason,   
   >> where two opposing conclusions, each supported   
   >> by seemingly valid arguments, appear equally true.   
   >   
   > For most peopple who care at all onlh care about the result and only   
   > to the extent that that they don't try the impossible. Some people   
   > want to understand Gödel's proof or some other proof but for most of   
   > them understanding one proof is enough. Usual alternative proofs are   
   > fairly similar to the original one and only differ on some details.   
   > A significantly simpler proof would be interesting but only if it is   
   > a complete proof.   
   >   
      
   Gödel admits that these simplifications are equivalent.   
   The only way to totally understand these things is to   
   boil them down to their barest possible essence. No one   
   wants to do that because they prefer bluster over truth.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 Olcott

              My 28 year goal has been to make
       "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
       reliably computable.

              This required establishing a new foundation
              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca