mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:14 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original holding them together is an interesting space because then, according to A, you will be deriving contradictions, but according to B, the result should be true. maybe shows how logic might work -- starts getting psychological, all this inferring of falsehoods. we don't want to be assuming falsehoods from this, much better if we can figure out what things are false that we're inferring and stop assuming them -- maybe -- Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:14 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original how can you say something that expands to falsehoods is true ???? this is not safe to do. Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:15 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original maybe the idea of contextual truth can apply here. like "rocks are big" applies when in the land of big rocks. Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:16 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original we want things that cause contradictions to be false because people very readily act on true information Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:17 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
A: An exhaustive list of all relevant universal truths combined with this statement produces a contradiction.
B: Statement A is true. Alternatively, a restatement of A where it is referenced by letter.
thinking of goal: we want things that produce contradictions to be false. Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:18 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original [why did you find the biggest and most problematic contradiction Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:22 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original thinking of concern: A) it can be true that a statement implies falsehoods B) such a statement can correctly refer to itself then goal: we want things that imply falsehoods to be false, because true information is acted on we can then infer C) statements that imply falsehoods are false D) statements that refer to themselves regarding implying falsehoods are themselves false it is then confusing to consider that a false statement can truly state that it implies falsehoods. unfortunately, we're now deriving that this true information can be the only thing it states, and it is still false. this is of course a simple way to handle things. Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:23 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original this interpretation of godel might be something near "we can't let statements truly talk about their own falseness because people might -- Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:24 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original so what happens then if A and B are adjac-- Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:24 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original unfortunately we have formed this approach to handle a cognitive issue stemming from a thought Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:24 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original possibly Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:25 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original "who mind controlled godel's axiom and forced it to be unprovable Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:28 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original basically the thought request is to defend modus tolens, which can be fair if we defend modus tolens (which reduces the area to select options from so makes the challenge harder, but is interesting and feels nice) then we have a situation where A: this statement is false could be interpreted such that A is false, and A is expressing something true we might say that "this statement is false" is always false whereas "that statement is false" can be true. Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:29 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original so how would we interpret: A (false): this statement is false B (true): A is false how do we hold them together? well it is pretty clear, since A is false, that "A and B" is also false. similarly "not(A) and B" is true. if we want to evaluate that we're kind of fudging it -- [describing A as [but it may not need to be a fudge Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:30 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original ------ anyway, so a way to interpret self referential statements could be to express them elsewise test: this statement is false evaluate: A: this statement is false B: (copy of A without recursion) A is false B is true A is false somehow i'm imagining doing this multiple times and that it could be an infinite number of times for some things Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:32 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original it makes one form of truth where: - statements referring to a part of themselves have a lengthy trueness starting with "false" where each subsequent element of the trueness is equivalent to the trueness of a new statement that replaces self references with references to the actual statement kind of like executing computer code Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:34 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original i just really think it doens't work for all situations i'm curious about the modus tolens change. the logic that backed this related to what is actually inverted when some things are held constant in a system of logic. modus tolens assumes countering of the assumptions involved, kind of, i'm kind of imagining if some of those are the logic system, then countering them gets multidimensional into other systems of logic, but is still solvable and often (maybe always?) could be made to stay in the same system of logic [given we can describe arbitrary things in words, it seems to make sense there would be one system of logic where things do stay in that same system] it seems interesting to consider expanding modus tolens but also addressing the worry about false expansions -- this is basically the purpose of holding those two things together [it's notable that when something is true, and we put it in a system where falsehoods infer, this is a serious problem with a logic] Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:36 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original okay: "proof is equivalent to truth. this sentence is unprovable." if we apply modus tolens to this, right now i'm thinking i'd like the modus tolens to not imply that "this sentence is unprovable" is true or false, but rather to imply that the whole expanded sentence is false -- Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:41 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original ------- idea: what if we say we can't prove statements, we can only prove the combination of statements with the axioms of the logic idea: what if we considered that self-referential statements cannot be immediately proven idea: what if we considered that statements that discuss provability cannot be immediately proven the first idea seems reasonable, helps simplify concepts a little "this statement's expansion with the axioms of logic proves as false" or simpler "this statement's expansion with the axioms of logic is false" this kind of narrows down on the modus tolens issue. the statement would be true, except that assuming it in the logic produces falsehoods, which is bad. we want our logic to function, ie that true things produce true things. Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:44 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original so, why? why do falsehoods stem from it? i guess basically what i've done here is i've shifted some of the concerns "proof equals truth" can be interpreted in different ways and i've focused on the expansion of statements i'm holding some the idea that the statement is true if we wanted to counter godel, we might try to prove this. maybe that's when copying it to another statement that refers to it is helpful. of course, i'm getting quite confused regarding the new influence of what is useful to quickly consider. it's certainly safer to only consider clearly true things ... Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:46 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original so i went in a bit, not learning more, just spammin' and it seemed like it was addressable, but the ways i found interesting to approach it involved considering it as tr[... basically involved producing new logic rules for the situation, which weren't initially simple and correct enough for my mind to accept continuing to consider it Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:47 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original maybe, {it sounds like there is a logic that is different from intuitive logic that works for recursive situations. the human world is a recursive situation: we make assertions about ourselves.} Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:55 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original A: A contradiction stems from "A" if held as true adjacent to any relevant truths. B: A contradiction stems from "A" if held as true adjacent to any relevant truths. C: "A" is false. D: "A" is true. so we could imagine that universal logic where the world is made of hard and fast events and matter, and consider infinite multiverses where all the different things happen, and consider true things to hold true in every universe, whereas false things do not. A statement then would be an expression of patterns in the universe. A description of them. "A" is saying, roughly, that if it is considered as true across the universe, in a correct logic, then false inferences can be inferred from it. "B" is repeating A, which avoids self-reference and provides for the different parts of its truth to be considered separately. Is "A" true? is it possible for it to be true? is it false? If "A" is false or true, what does that mean? what is the meaning of false or true in a correct logic? We've stated this. True things describe all parts of every universe. False things have an exception. I might argue the correctness of a logic only relates to its impact on what actually happens in the real world. So the truth of this statement would then rely on its accurate impact on the larger world. Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:56 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original We could make a little more real by considering an honest agent present in the universe. This agent might say: "I lie." Is this a true statement? [in reality, every being lies, because we are not omniscient but speak concisely] Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 1:01 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original A: A contradiction stems from "A" if held as true adjacent to any relevant truths in a correct logic. B: A contradiction stems from "A" if held as true adjacent to any relevant truths in a correct logic. i guess we need to theorize a correct logic given the domain involves self-referential statements, considering just normal events in the world is not sufficient. we'd need to consider statements in the world. [considering just statements is not sufficient, either, we'd need to consider self-referential statements that relate to the world] one can derive that if only what happens in the world matters, then what kind of self-referential logic is used doesn't matter -- what matters is that the parts of the logic that relate to the world are consistent. Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 1:01 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original here we could infer that the truth of the self-referential portion of an expression is relevant only for its utility to derive the truths of other parts. Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 1:03 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original one might consider a logic where self-references elide away if unused the statement "this sentence is true" and "this sentence is false" might both elide to empty statements (or true ones) Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 1:05 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original this gives an opposing view to "this sentence is unprovable" being false because a contradiction is inferred when paired with the axioms of logic instead, we now evaluate it as true, because the unused self-reference elides away, leaving only the axioms of logic Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 1:07 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original the end question is, is math solvable, it looks like a question for computer science or something with the eliding view, because determining if something elides away -- is there a way to may it not possible to elide it away? what kind of patterns arise with what is real? "this sentence is unprovable, and whether or not rocks are big in land R is equivalent to this sentence's provability?" Add star mailbombbin<mailbombbin@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 1:08 PM To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com> Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original quite similar to dividing by 0 basically the sentence can be true or false or not-a-sentence and this is orthogonal to the size of the rocks