Math_Enthusiast

External reality probably is, and therefore what is is.

And so this would be a truism.

Though truth as a concept is only the necessity of an internally dependant organism, and so an external reality can only be indirectly assessed.

The organic computer doesn't process numerically.

We acquire this ability, some better than others.

Whereas A.I. processes numerically  and can convert readily. 

And if you consider how we process and appreciate data,  then simulation isn't really a hypothetical consideration.

Everything is an internal projection, derived from incoming sensory signals.

Therefore truth and reality are always an assumptive simulation of an assumed external reality. 

So we can qualify to degree by agreement, but agreement is a still only a collection of assumed truths and realities.

You don't need to explain Godel to me, the incompleteness theorem speaks directly to "logicism" and your so called "truth premise", hence it explicitly applies as used.

It only "says nothing about the external world"  if you accept that logicism says nothing about the real world, you are refuting your own argument. 

The universe isn't true or false, it just is. Truth is a matter of propositional language, perhaps the propositions can be about the universe, but the universe itself does not have a "truth structure".

It isn’tvalid to just declare truth, especially when your declaration of truth is self-referential,and particularly when there is a valid “proof” that explicitly refutes it.

It is impossible to reach concusions without making up truth and ignoring contradictions?  That isn't how logic works.

If you are going to completely redefine logic and truth, maybe it would be best if you do include the specifics, minimally you should tell us what universe this logic comes from. 

I’m noteven sure what this gobbledegook is supposed to be, it is masquerading as a deductiveargument, but that is not what it is by any stretch of the imagination.

Wedon’t just “assume” axioms, they must be established, accepted, orself-evidently true.

Regarding this entire argument, all Ican do is quote Wolfgang Pauli, “it isn’t even wrong”.

We effectively just accept the truth premise as if it has already been established as true within the valid and complete notion of truth that it assures the existence of.

Why are you saying this?  Why is this not written as follows.

We accept the truth premise as true

Why do you add

Within the valid and complete notion of truth.

Notion means - a belief about something

Valid means - true 

So you are saying there is a true belief in complete truth. 

Which also could be shortened to.

There is a belief in truth. 

What exactly are you trying to get at here? 

Despite how short it is, there is a lot to unpack. First of all, there is an issue here: The truth premise asserts itself as true, before any sort of notion of truth has been established. My resolution to this: Ignore it. Performing some sort of bootstrap here is entirely necessary. We effectively just accept the truth premise as if it has already been established as true within the valid and complete notion of truth that it assures the existence of. Now let's break down what the truth premise really means. There are two key words: Valid and complete.

Valid: Consistent and sound.

Complete: Capable of assigning every objective and meaningful statement a truth value of true or false.

Consistent: Containing no contradiction. No statement is both true and false.

You may have noticed that I have omitted the definition of soundness. In logic, the soundness of a set of axioms means that they imply only true results. The issue here is that we are trying to obtain a notion of truth in the first place. Soundness as it is used here is to say that if there is any sort of underlying truth structure within the universe, this notion of truth is consistent not only with itself, but with this underlying truth structure. It is not clear what such a structure would be, but nonetheless it is an important precaution.

Define the truth premise a little more clearly, so that it can be better appreciated by your audience.

Despite how short it is, there is a lot to unpack. First of all, there is an issue here: The truth premise asserts itself as true, before any sort of notion of truth has been established. My resolution to this: Ignore it. Performing some sort of bootstrap here is entirely necessary. We effectively just accept the truth premise as if it has already been established as true within the valid and complete notion of truth that it assures the existence of. Now let's break down what the truth premise really means. There are two key words: Valid and complete.

Valid: Consistent and sound.

Complete: Capable of assigning every objective and meaningful statement a truth value of true or false.

Consistent: Containing no contradiction. No statement is both true and false.

You may have noticed that I have omitted the definition of soundness. In logic, the soundness of a set of axioms means that they imply only true results. The issue here is that we are trying to obtain a notion of truth in the first place. Soundness as it is used here is to say that if there is any sort of underlying truth structure within the universe, this notion of truth is consistent not only with itself, but with this underlying truth structure. It is not clear what such a structure would be, but nonetheless it is an important precaution.

Are you comparing truth with reality.

If so...Reality according to what?

Internal data processing, or immediate internally processed appreciations of external stimuli.

In both cases, simulated truths or realities.

Or perhaps just simulations

Math just converts to numbers.

But for the most part we have to convert back again to an understandable narrative or image.

Perhaps this is where A.I. will have the edge. (Alternative Intelligence)

This looks like gobbledygook to me. I kind of had to stop reading there. 

The truth premise: There is a valid and complete notion of truth.

The statement above for example means nothing. There is also a valid and complete notion about what spaghetti is. Who cares. That's neither a statement of a position or really much of a position itself. 

Despite how short it is, there is a lot to unpack. First of all, there is an issue here: The truth premise asserts itself as true, before any sort of notion of truth has been established. My resolution to this: Ignore it. Performing some sort of bootstrap here is entirely necessary. We effectively just accept the truth premise as if it has already been established as true within the valid and complete notion of truth that it assures the existence of. Now let's break down what the truth premise really means. There are two key words: Valid and complete.

Valid: Consistent and sound.

Complete: Capable of assigning every objective and meaningful statement a truth value of true or false.

Consistent: Containing no contradiction. No statement is both true and false.

You may have noticed that I have omitted the definition of soundness. In logic, the soundness of a set of axioms means that they imply only true results. The issue here is that we are trying to obtain a notion of truth in the first place. Soundness as it is used here is to say that if there is any sort of underlying truth structure within the universe, this notion of truth is consistent not only with itself, but with this underlying truth structure. It is not clear what such a structure would be, but nonetheless it is an important precaution.

As a math enthusiast, you know that Godel put a bullet right between the eyes of Logicism, it fell to the self-referential paradox, even after Russell’s do over with the Principia, the attempt to reduce mathematics to logic clearly failed.

Gödel proved that it is logically and scientifically impossible to devise a set of axioms from which all the phenomena of the external world can be deduced.

1. Do you accept the truth premise? (See my original post for a definition.)
   
2. Do you have any objections to my reasoning following the truth premise.
   

Everything is internal,

Externality is an assumption converted from incoming signalling.

Spirituality is a notable reaction to a specific stimuli.

Logic is how data is ordered.

And truth is determined by the self,

Or externally, truth is an indeterminate factor of what we assume.

Nonetheless, perhaps an actual human being will one day visit Mars.

Just as a few have visited the Moon, I think.

Such is the nature of what we might conclude to be reality.

Spiritual logicism: The belief that spiritual truths about the universe can be understood as, and fundamentally are, an extension of abstract logic.

What does spiritual mean to you? What is a spiritual truth?

... An extension of logicism to the nature of reality.

... with certain additional axioms, we should be able to describe our own reality.

... The reality we live in can be entirely described by a set of axioms.

Are you asserting that there is one reality for everyone? that everyone shares one and only one reality?

If truly respect them then, --for the umteenth time--- directly address then, as I have done with you, to no avail.

IVe also addressed your "Spiritual logicism" directly #9 and again below, til you grasp that is falls in catagory of:

.......0} Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i.e. that which exists beyond/Meta our finite, occupied space  Universe, and,

beyond/Meta the macro-infinite, and truly non-occupied space, that,

again exists beyond/Meta our finite occupied space Universe,

ex abstract concepts of Space, God, Time, Universe, Toyotas, Concepts, Dogs, relative truth, absolute truth and false narrative, etc...i.e. abstract logic, common sense and critical thinking pathways of thought, or even  not logical, not common sense, and no critical thinking all fall in this 0} Spirit-1, Meta-space catagory. Simple

First and foremost, what Ive tried to make clear to you, that whatever definitive descriptions of existence you have to offer, fall within this Cosmic Trinary Set { 0, 1, 2 }.  Do you understand that?  Ex lets say fermion, well fermionic matter is an occupied space of phyiscal realtiy { quantised } ergo, falls within 2} spirit and specifically 2a} Spirit-2.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is automatically stupid. I would have thought that someone on a debate site could respect differing points of view. Apparently not. That's sad.

Huh? False and you appear confused. What I state of above is amatter of fact.  Your ego has run off trying to leave the cosmic trinary set in the dust, and that se includes definition of Universe.

Cosmic Trinary Set is valid and youve shown nothing, zip,nada that invalidates it.  Place a quote here,  from you LINK that invalidates the cosmic trinary set aka the most wholistic set of existence, that starts with a set of three.

Russell’s paradox is the most famous of the logical or set-theoretical paradoxes. Also known as the Russell-Zermelo paradox, the paradox arises within naïve set theory by considering the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Such a set appears to be a member of itself if and only if it is not a member of itself. Hence the paradox.

That is, a set that contains everything cannot exist.

I read  a line of text #7 and specifically addressed in #9.  You need to go back there, so we can start all over. What a chore and waste of time and effort your proving to be. Ego is the problem here is my best guess. Maybe not understanding. Time may tell.

Would this set be an element of itself?

Yes, and it may have a trinary sub-set also. There a few if not many of those and again, whatever set you want to propose/present is subset/sub-catagory of the Cosmic Trinary Set. You can try all you want, and again, you nor anyone else can present a set that is not within the Cosmic Trinary Set.  Please share if you think you can. You have not done that yet.

If not, then by definition it would be. If so, then by definition it would not be. This is a contradiction, and so our initial premise must have been false.

I address this above. Subsets  are sets, but that does not preclude them from being a sub-set of the more wholistic trinary set, and you obviously do not grasp this relatively simple concept. We could have moved on to more of what you have too offer, except you cant get past the the Cosmic Primary Set. Maybe you dont grasp the definition of the word primary.

I address this above.

Subsets  are sets,

but that does not preclude them from being a sub-set of the more wholistic trinary set,

and you obviously do not grasp this relatively simple concept.

We could have moved on to more of what you have too offer, except you cant get past the the Cosmic Primary Set.

Please try and make a distinction between an abstract concept of a dog and an occupied space dog that will actually bite your leg you could get occupied space virus bacteria etc. Can you make that distinction? Do I have to lead you to a dictionary?

I will keeo going over this untill you are able to make these distinctions at the top of cosmic trinary set. Simple, not difficult to grasp,  unless your ego gets in the way, or you not taking the time to understand and comprehend what Ive stated from the get go --at the top of each thread-- to you

All that you have to offer will always fall withing my Cosmic Trinary Set. 

No. No I don't understand why you think that everyone else's ideas must somehow already be a part of yours. Please explain why you think that.

I did explain in post #9 today, you obviously disagree, and dont grasp the simple. So I have keep going back until you can grasp the simple, before we can move on.

Spiritual logicism: The belief that spiritual truths about the universe can be understood as, and fundamentally are, an extension of abstract logic. An extension of logicism to the nature of reality.

.......0} Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i.e. that whichexists beyond our finite, occupied space  Universe and beyond the macro-finite and trulynon-occupied space, that, again exists outside/beyond/Meta ourfinite occupied space Universe, ex concepts of Space, God, Time, Universe, Toyotas, Concepts, Dogs, etc

Your Spiriual logicism falls in catagory of 0}above, or in post #1 i have it as 1b. Thenumerical labeling is irrelevant, the content of what I state clearly

Yes it does, So you really have no idea of the primary cosmic set " the most wholistic set', that Im presenting to you, and that is the place to start with the greatest whole ergo no parts can be excluded

None ever have, nor ever will add too, or invalidate this trinary set.

Physical reality { an occupied space } " what is real " = energy { an occupied space }  = what we can quantise via instrumentation ergo an occupied space.

First and foremost, what Ive tried to make clear to you, that whatever definitive descriptions of existence you have to offer, fall into the Cosmic Trinary Set { 0, 1, 2 }.  Do you understand that? 

You need to start there, then we can get into specific subcatgories, as ive done for 20 years or more ex 2} 2a} 2b} 2c} as the primary trinary set of occupied space. Do you understand that? Any occupied space existence falls into one of  more of those three sub-catagories.

If you can add to or invalidates any of those please share, otherwise, what I state above to you is the starting place, for all that you think exists. Understand?

Again, read the Cosmic Trinary Set as if it were a book containing the most wholistic set of existence. Start with most wholistic set and no parts can be exclude, i.e. anything you have to offer will fall into one of those The top Cosmic Trinary Set first and fore most. When you grasp that, then we can move on.

.......1b} Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i.e. that whichexists beyond our finite, occupied space  Universe and beyond the macro-finite and trulynon-occupied space, that, again exists outside/beyond/Meta ourfinite occupied space Universe, ex concepts of Space, God, Time, Universe, Toyotas, Concepts, Dogs, etc

Ergo, your "spiritual logicism" falls within my definition above, as revised from post #1 in this thread.

All that you have to offer will always fall withing my Cosmic Trinary Set. This can also be seen in new thread i.e. there is not a definition of this or that, that, will not fall within my Cosmic Trinary Set, as its the most wholistic set of existence.

See my new thread, Revised Wholistic Set of Existence  --always being developed/reveised--   that Ive posted for years as the Cosmic Trinary Set. Again all that say exists will fall within or under that tryinary set. Only a rare few have tried to invalidate what laid out clearly as if reading the Contents section at beginning of a educational book. The Cosmic Trinary Set.

I wish that the only words Putin could say were "In these unprecedented times."

1}  " non-material planes of being" to me, means that which is beyond occupied space --- physical reality{ Spirit-2 }, Gravity{ Spirit-3 } and Dark Energy Spirit-4 } ---, and that leaves only two possibilities for defining ' beyond the material plane ‘;

......1a}  the macro-infinite truly non-occupied space, that embraces our finite, occupied space Universe, and/or,

.......1b} Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i.e. that which exists beyond our finite, occupied space  Universe and the truly non-occupied space, that, again exists outside/beyond/Meta our finite occupied space Universe.

• What exactly does it mean for something to exist? You, like me, seem to be under the impression that it is not just physical reality that exists, but what exactly is your criterion for existence?
  
• Why "Spirit?"
  
• Why the exact partitioning and enumeration that you chose? (i.e. why is gravity before dark energy, physical reality before gravity, etc.)
  
• Could you further elaborate on Spirit-1, especially Spirit-1a? I'm curious to hear some of the things you consider to fall under these categories.
  

The above is simplest way I know to explain the statement of belief  ' the highest ', however, if any were to delve deeper in to my cosmological scenarios, Gravity is the outer peak of encoded consciousness, and it is intimately related to the inner peak of encoded consciousness as Dark Energy.  Between the outer and inner is our  quantise-able and quantifiable physical reality consciousness. ( * * ).

• What is encoded consciousness exactly?
  
• What makes these seemingly arbitrary things "peaks?"
  
• What role does consciousness play in the rest of reality according to you?
  

My simple iconic and 2ndary symbolism  for these three is based on a 3D torus and this is the 2D bisection, as follows. ......space(>*<) i  (>*<)space....., wherein, the italicised i is Meta-space ego, that, exists outside/beyond the occupied space of Gravity (  ), Dark Energy )( and the sine-wave associated physical reality /\/\/\/ that is inbetween Gravity and Dark Energy, and actually a resultant of the invaginations { >< } from the outer peaks and inner peaks  (>*<)(>*<) that in its most complex evolution is that of bilateral human consciousness { * * } with access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego.

• Could you elaborate on how these geometric objects are analogous to what they represent?
  

• Use math.
  
• Partition reality into different physical and non-physical tiers.
  
• Attempt to analyze what exactly reality is, and what the best way for our limited minds to think about it is.