Conceptual Truth can be understood as math

[PeteOlcott]

You are disrespectfully not paying attention to the distinctions that I have carefully outlined.

Your distinctions are useless without a classification function.

Which category does the statement "The cardinality of general knowledge is N" belong to?
Which category does the statement "The cardinality of discourse knowledge is M" belong to?

N and M are NOT constants. English is pass-by-value not pass-by-reference.

The truth-value of the sentence is a function of the system's cardinality.
When the cardinality changes. The truth-value changes with it.

At any specific point in time both knowledge bases contain a specific fixed constant number of relations between finite strings.

[Skepdick]

At any specific point in time both knowledge bases contain a specific fixed constant number of relations between finite strings.

Pete. The statement "The cardinality of the knowledge-base is N" is knowledge. Therefore it needs to be part of the knowledge base.

The moment you add the statement to your knowledge-base, the cardinality of your knowledge-base increments.

Rendering the statement false.

[PeteOlcott]

The truth-value of the sentence is a function of the system's cardinality.
When the cardinality changes. The truth-value changes with it.

We have a formal system with exactly one axiom:
"5" [>] "3" which is true.

We add one more axiom
"8" [>] "3" which is true.

Oh No !!! Oh No !!! According to your nutty reasoning because we added one axiom to the system
"5" [>] "3" IS NOT TRUE ANY MORE !!!

[Eodnhoj7]

At any specific point in time both knowledge bases contain a specific fixed constant number of relations between finite strings.

Pete. The statement "The cardinality of the knowledge-base is N" is knowledge. Therefore it needs to be part of the knowledge base.

The moment you add the statement to your knowledge-base, the cardinality of your knowledge-base increments.

Rendering the statement false.

Again, agree.

[Skepdick]

The truth-value of the sentence is a function of the system's cardinality.
When the cardinality changes. The truth-value changes with it.

We have a formal system with exactly one axiom:
"5" [>] "3" which is true.

We add one more axiom
"8" [>] "3" which is true.

Oh No !!! Oh No !!! According to your nutty reasoning because we added one axiom to the system
"5" [>] "3" IS NOT TRUE ANY MORE !!!

Pete - surely you can't be this ignorant?

Is the sentence "Today is the 15th of August" true?

This IS the liar's paradox! Can you not see that?

It boils down to WHEN you evaluate the meaning of "Today".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation_strategy

[PeteOlcott]

The truth-value of the sentence is a function of the system's cardinality.
When the cardinality changes. The truth-value changes with it.

We have a formal system with exactly one axiom:
"5" [>] "3" which is true.

We add one more axiom
"8" [>] "3" which is true.

Oh No !!! Oh No !!! According to your nutty reasoning because we added one axiom to the system
"5" [>] "3" IS NOT TRUE ANY MORE !!!

Pete - surely you can't be this ignorant?

Is the sentence "Today is the 15th of August" true?

This IS the liar's paradox!

I am sorry you must be dumber than a box of rocks if you think that the
sentence referred to is either GENERAL KNOWLEDGE or THE LIAR PARADOX.

Did you think that [General Knowledge] was knowledge about generals in the army?

A SENTENCE MUST BE SELF-CONTRADICTORY TO EVEN HAVE THE SAME STRUCTURE AS THE LIAR PARADOX
I SPENT 5000 HOURS ON THESE THINGS IN THE LAST 30 MONTHS.

[Eodnhoj7]

We have a formal system with exactly one axiom:
"5" [>] "3" which is true.

We add one more axiom
"8" [>] "3" which is true.

Oh No !!! Oh No !!! According to your nutty reasoning because we added one axiom to the system
"5" [>] "3" IS NOT TRUE ANY MORE !!!

Pete - surely you can't be this ignorant?

Is the sentence "Today is the 15th of August" true?

This IS the liar's paradox!

I am sorry you must be dumber than a box of rocks if you think that the
sentence referred to is either GENERAL KNOWLEDGE or THE LIAR PARADOX.

Did you think that [General Knowledge] was knowledge about generals in the army?

A SENTENCE MUST BE SELF-CONTRADICTORY TO EVEN HAVE THE SAME STRUCTURE AS THE LIAR PARADOX
I SPENT 5000 HOURS ON THESE THINGS IN THE LAST 30 MONTHS.

Fallacy, time spent on a project does not mean success or lack of.

All axioms are paradoxical in nature because of their context, thus all statements are simultaneously true and false.

[Skepdick]

A SENTENCE MUST BE SELF-CONTRADICTORY TO EVEN HAVE THE SAME STRUCTURE AS THE LIAR PARADOX
I SPENT 5000 HOURS ON THESE THINGS IN THE LAST 30 MONTHS.

A fool and his m̶o̶n̶e̶y̶ time are soon parted.

The way you have "solved" the liar's paradox is by "forbidding" self-reference in your system.
Which is ironic, because by forbidding self-reference your knowledge-system cannot say anything about itself.

Your knowledge system doesn't know how much knowledge it contains. True or false?

[PeteOlcott]

All axioms are paradoxical in nature because of their context, thus all statements are simultaneously true and false.

Sounds psychotic to me.

[Eodnhoj7]

All axioms are paradoxical in nature because of their context, thus all statements are simultaneously true and false.

Sounds psychotic to me.

Reality is absurd...get over it. That is the one of many constants.

If you think you are going to put reality into a formal system...that is just ego. Reality is the system and at best can be described by paradox and form. Form is the only universal axiomatic base that allows paradox to exist without being self defeating.

Make a formal system using variations of this: ⊙

And you will get my attention because it is grounded in form with the fallacy of the Munchauseen trillema.


If you want to see an argument that will really screw with your head, look up the 13 prime directives thread...I got permanently banned from "applying" to a universities school of philosophy because I used it as a writing sample.

Banned from applying.

The "death of philosophy thread" and the "prime triad" also observes variations of these principles.

[PeteOlcott]

All axioms are paradoxical in nature because of their context, thus all statements are simultaneously true and false.

Sounds psychotic to me.

Reality is absurd...get over it. That is the one of many constants.

If you think you are going to put reality into a formal system...that is just ego. Reality is the system and at best can be described by paradox and form. Form is the only universal axiomatic base that allows paradox to exist without being self defeating.

None of any of that so that: [all statements are simultaneously true and false.]

[Eodnhoj7]

Sounds psychotic to me.

Reality is absurd...get over it. That is the one of many constants.

If you think you are going to put reality into a formal system...that is just ego. Reality is the system and at best can be described by paradox and form. Form is the only universal axiomatic base that allows paradox to exist without being self defeating.

None of any of that so that: [all statements are simultaneously true and false.]

Context makes all statements simultaneously true and false.

A can be right in context C
A can be wrong in context D
A can be right and wrong as assumed.

You will not find the precision you are after.

[PeteOlcott]

Reality is absurd...get over it. That is the one of many constants.

If you think you are going to put reality into a formal system...that is just ego. Reality is the system and at best can be described by paradox and form. Form is the only universal axiomatic base that allows paradox to exist without being self defeating.

None of any of that so that: [all statements are simultaneously true and false.]

Context makes all statements simultaneously true and false.

A can be right in context C
A can be wrong in context D
A can be right and wrong as assumed.

You will not find the precision you are after.

When we make the analytic versus synthetic distinction correctly the stipulated relations
between finite strings IS ALL THERE IS TO THEIR TRUTH.

The analytic side of this distinction fully encompasses Tarski Undefineability and Gödel
1931 Incompleteness, thus making context and every aspect of physically manifest reality
OFF-TOPIC and OUT-OF-SCOPE.

[Eodnhoj7]

None of any of that so that: [all statements are simultaneously true and false.]

Context makes all statements simultaneously true and false.

A can be right in context C
A can be wrong in context D
A can be right and wrong as assumed.

You will not find the precision you are after.

When we make the analytic versus synthetic distinction correctly the stipulated relations
between finite strings IS ALL THERE IS TO THEIR TRUTH.

The analytic side of this distinction fully encompasses Tarski Undefineability and Gödel
1931 Incompleteness, thus making context and every aspect of physically manifest reality
OFF-TOPIC and OUT-OF-SCOPE.

"If we make the distinction correctly" fundamentally requires us to analyze analysis. All analysis, as divergent in nature is grounded in a bare minimum quanity of 2 phenomenon being produced or a qualitative dualism.

Analytic divergence: 1 -> (1(.5), 1(.5))

->

Synthetic convergence: (1(.5), 1(.5)) -> 2(1)

Synthesis can maintain the original truth while producing a variation.

Synthesis allows for maintenance and continuity.

[PeteOlcott]

Context makes all statements simultaneously true and false.

A can be right in context C
A can be wrong in context D
A can be right and wrong as assumed.

You will not find the precision you are after.

When we make the analytic versus synthetic distinction correctly the stipulated relations
between finite strings IS ALL THERE IS TO THEIR TRUTH.

The analytic side of this distinction fully encompasses Tarski Undefineability and Gödel
1931 Incompleteness, thus making context and every aspect of physically manifest reality
OFF-TOPIC and OUT-OF-SCOPE.

"If we make the distinction correctly" fundamentally requires us to analyze analysis. All analysis, as divergent in nature is grounded in a bare minimum quanity of 2 phenomenon being produced or a qualitative dualism.

Analytic divergence: 1 -> (1(.5), 1(.5))

->

Synthetic convergence: (1(.5), 1(.5)) -> 2(1)

Synthesis can maintain the original truth while producing a variation.

Synthesis allows for maintenance and continuity.

Still pretty nuts to me. It is like you are saying that the stipulated
relation between finite strings "5" [>] "3" is free to wiggle around if
it gets in the mood of divergence.