A lot of information about the etymology/origin of terms only goes back so far.
There are also 'urban myth,' style claims which I have always found intuitively, probably have some truth behind them but I don't claim they are true. Examples include:
The word Justice comes from the Roman emperor Justinian 1st who rewrote Roman law.
The word sin comes from Naram sin, the King of the Akkadians who was disrespectful to the gods (the curse of Akkad) and the gods therefore destroyed his kingdom because of it.
The word evil comes from Eve and simply means those who behave like Eve and disobey god. I hope this one has some truth in it as it takes a lot of the power out of this word imo and helps show that god stories are just fables.

Folklore can be fun!

Might that be what democracy is about? — Athena

Well, it's what socialism/humanism is about and neither of those labels have any value without democracy.

It is empowering everyone who is affected by a decision to come to the table and explain what is and what should be. Then arguing until there is a consensus on the best reasoning — Athena

Sounds better than some dictatorship of a privileged few.

You know, like the Greek gods. — Athena

The Greek gods never existed, the atheists, christians and muslims all agree on that one.

When I was born we still had a sense that there was plenty of everything. In my lifetime we have gone from plenty of everything to crisis. We have a housing shortage where land used to be dirt cheap and there was far more available land than people to fill it. Plenty of water to water wars. We are having a very hard time dealing with reality. I do not think we have a good grasp of it and we are not organized to deal with the facts we need — Athena

There is also a great deal of bad organisation. I live in Scotland, our population is quite small (Around 5 million). We could build a few more major cities in Scotland, we also have hundreds of uninhabited islands that could be developed but 'there's not enough profit in it.' Hah! total BS, we need to nurture people not profit.

In general everyone is behaving like the kids fighting in the back seat of the car. They are yelling at each other and no one is working with the facts. — Athena

A fair analysis but don't forget that we have been trying to deal with a very powerful, clever, very well established, global hierarchy of elites, since the free market economy and the money trick became established. Rich, global family dynasties formed out of the dying national aristocracies and monarchies.
These became the basis for establishing global banking systems and global conglomerates.
It's just evolving global dynasties similar in structure, style, and behaviour to global gangsterism. I see little difference between the mafia Don's and Don Elon Musk or Don Donald Trump.
They will fight the masses tooth and nail and they have the established power to do it. They will divide you, terrorise and murder those who raise their heads in protest, especially those who are getting through to the masses and are trying to organise them. They will pay your own kind to betray you and turn against you. They will also convince your own kind in the form of police and soldiers that their loyalty must lie with the established rich and powerful and not the people.
Millions of socialists/humanists have been slaughtered for 10,000 years of tears to fight against the nefarious and they have defeated monarchies and aristocracies and they have created systems all over the world which are far better and fairer for more people compared to any system or civilisation from antiquity. The fight continues. The socialists/humanist are still here and we still number in the many many millions globally. We will defeat the nefarious completely one day and become an interplanetary/interstellar species.

New politics are badly needed everywhere. The old parties like the republicans and democrats in the USA and the tories, labour and lib dems in Britain are all dinosaurs and no longer fit for purpose.
I personally now favour non-party politics. I won't go into the details here of how and why I see voting for people rather than parties would be better and how authority levels should be organised and structured.
That's one or more threads under titles like 'new politics.' I am a socialist/humanist and an atheist and those viewpoints do drive my politics but I soooooooo agree that too many folks have not studied politics or learned the lessons from history (or even know history well enough) to make informed political decisions. It must be also stated however that the nefarious work hard at distracting the majority with mind-numbing reality tv shows, BS low-level celebrity culture to aspire to and some little crumbs of forlorn hope from their table. I have said and typed many times before that they never needed to fool all of the people all of the time, some of the time or some of the people all of the time has been good enough for the nefarious rich and powerful to thrive and even consolidate and expand.

Started reading the first link to the IEP resource.
I like the fact its free and the editors are not paid so have no 'ulterior motives,' in what they type.
I noticed all the editors of the philosophy of language, were Americans.
The preamble in the first link states, and I paraphrase a little,
Many philosophers outside this tradition(Anglo-American with roots in German and Austrian philosophy) have views on the nature and use of language.'
and
Readers should bear in mind this restriction of scope.

Ok, so reading the sentences on Wilfrid Sellars, language as 'the medium of conceptualisation,' seems to match my typing about 'thinking, reasoning, manifest as language.'
It's interesting Broca's area is mentioned soon after this. I have read Carl Sagan's book 'Broca's brain' a few times.

Kant and wittgenstein are briefly mentioned then it's John Stuart Mills and Mill's Empiricism.
He connects language, meaning and experience.
Example: 'Professor,' normally implies an expert in an academic field.
Jordan Peterson claims expertise in many fields, yet he is actually only academically qualified in one field, clinical psychology. But his philosophy seems to be to claim expertise in many fields. I don't see why you are claiming that I am misinterpreting 'philosophy of language' when I type such sentences about JP. I don't think I misinterpret 'Mills Empiricism' here.
The article states;
'Not all those concerned with language shared Mills empiricist leanings, though most shared his sense that denotation rather than connotation should be at the center of an account of meaning. A word denotes something by standing for it.'
In what ways am I infringing this?

I decided to stop at this early point in reading the IEP material for three reasons.
1. I don't want to end up responding to you with something of unwieldy size.
2. Get some feedback from you on my initial, early, thoughts.
3. Confirm that you wish me to delve deeper into the IEP material as I have not even touched the main points of your objections yet.

"Possibly" in current math would be a conjecture. It would go nowhere logically by itself. "Believe" really would be nonsense in mathematics. — jgill

:up: I also know of no attempts in the current AI developments where they are trying to emulate the human concept of belief. I do think that belief is strongly associated with fear, instinct and even intuition so I don't think computing science and artificial intelligence can completely ignore 'belief' if they wish to emulate human consciousness effectively but I see no place for fear, instinct, intuition or belief in mathematics. Mathematicians YES, absolutely, but mathematics, NO.
It's easy to 'model' human thought processes by substituting words like 'not,' 'and,' 'at least one example exists' with keyboard symbols such as ∧, ¬ etc. It's no more than a convenient text substitution system or 'shorthand.' It seems to me that there is nothing new in modal logic language that can tackle questions such as 'The Paradox of Omniscience.'

We Americans try not to deplatform anyone because they may influence elections — praxis

Perhaps that's part of the reason why a horror like Trump can become president. Although living in Scotland under the gangland Westminster crew with Don Boris in charge was a similar horror and it now looks like the next Don will be a choice between two Thatcherbots. So, we in the Britain, can't really say much about the weaknesses in the political systems of other countries.

:smile: I know what you mean. It's hard to keep up with developments in computing science as well, which is my field of expertise.
But projecting my knowledge of computing science I cannot conceive of any system, human, transhuman or machine based that could be omniscient, regardless of any mathematical system that suggests it may be or is possible.
So if, a mathematician like you who achieved the title of professor does not think there is any mathematical pathway to omniscience, based on:

The words "omniscience" and "God" are not in my vocabulary normally. — jgill

Then this adds to my skepticism regarding a modal logic path towards it.

He is, but I don't know the various ways into American politics for people not born there.
Even if he can't gain high political office in the USA, he might become just as dangerous, if he gains more and more followers and can then influence who they vote for in the USA.

He has not made any contributions to the philosophy of language that I’m aware of, — Jamal

Where did I suggest he has? Everyone imo has their own philosophical approach to life, yes?
Suggested synonyms for the word philosophy from the Bing on-line dictionary are:
thinking · reasoning · thought · wisdom · knowledge. So thinking and reasoning are manifest in language. Jordan uses language to describe his philosophy. This is my angle of approach in trying to analyse what his intentions are and how on-line social media is accommodating/moderating him.

I have no qualifications in philosophy and I will defer to those that do when it comes to technicalities or interpreting terminology. I will look at both the links you provided and respond after I have read the contents.

Feel free to ignore me, of course. — Jamal

Not at all. I do not want to make statements which are based on completely misinterpreting terminology so if that is what you think I am doing then I appreciate the fact you are telling me so and are providing the links to show me why. Give me a little time to look at what you have linked me to.

The thing that really bugs me about people like JP is when they talk about how bad it is for the county to be divided the way it is, as if they're not selfishly contributing to its division — praxis

I agree that he increases divisions between people but I object a lot more to his claim to not be right-wing and be theistically conflicted. He talks about hierarchies in such a way that suggests they are a natural imperative and he tries to justify power and wealth being in the hands of the few through such bad science. I just wonder if he is trying to build enough of a following that he could throw his hat into the political ring in the USA.

Thank you indeed for the time and effort you have spent in watching the video and typing your views.

Twitter insists that it be deleted for violating the rules against hateful conduct, which are that "you may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of... gender, gender identity, ..." — praxis

So Twitter did not ban him straight away they gave him a chance to delete the tweet. This is similar to TPF's approach in that you get a threat to ban and perhaps even a second or third warning before you are actually banned. Would you have banned Peterson straight away for this tweet or give him the chance to withdraw what he typed? The house of commons speaker will let an MP withdraw a statement/comment and if they don't then they have to leave the chamber and can be removed by security if they don't comply.

Peterson says that "I would rather die than do that," so he considers it a ban. — praxis

This was one of the first issues Matt and Jimmy had with his response video. This 'I would rather die than do that' approach is very provocative. He used two cameras to shoot him from different angles. He sits suited up in a fancy chair trying to look quite regal and authoritative.
He invokes images of the captured hero soldier, refusing to comply with an enemy (in this case twitter) despite their tortures (threat to ban). Do you think Peterson has been studying Trump and his approach to rhetoric. Do you think Jordan is employing psychological tactics here to win over more supporters?
I think this is why Matt and Jimmy felt the need to tear this imagery down with valid counterpoints and angry insults. Is it not important that he be 'torn down' with a mix of valid counterpoints and insults because to do otherwise would be a weak response to dangerous and destructive viewpoints such as those doctors who perform surgery requested by transsexuals should be vilified as criminals?
This is why I think YouTube will publish such angry responses by the likes of Matt and Jimmy or the Cody Johnson video. They see past the need to control the language and the insults due to the importance of countering the imagery JP is trying to sell. I don't think the antinatalism group is as powerful as the transphobic group but they could become so.

Remember when pride was a sin? — praxis

So what's his philosophy of language here? What's his intentionality? To attract theists/Christians to his side or at least confirm that they are still on his side as he already had many of them in his camp. He was obviously attacking the gay pride events here.

He refers to page as her and Ellen rather than Elliot — praxis

Matt and Jimmy called this 'dead naming.' They did not coin the term but seemed keen to repeat it many times. Are such phrases an effective counter?
Find a cool-sounding short sharp phrase that will be easy to understand, make the person who is accused of it look nasty, it will be hard to defend against.
Do these phrases work? or are people beginning to see through such phrases?

Criminal physician — praxis

This is the most serious and dangerous comment he made and Matt and Jimmy countered in the strongest terms they could, almost suggesting JP was talking like a fascist himself.
If you responded to this gently and with non-emotive language, I think you would just look weak.
I could not offer a 'with respect' response to such an unacceptable statement.

Anyway, I don't think that if someone posted here at TPF what JP tweeted that any action would be taken against them, but I'm not entirely sure. — praxis

Only the staff could tell us but I think if Jordan would be banned straight away if he typed that on TPF but I also am not entirely sure.

Based on the evidence that we have not found any life beyond earth, it can be stated that during the time it took for our star(the sun) to form and then our solar system (including Earth) to the moment that 'life' in its microbial infancy formed two main groups, bacteria and archaea. There was no sentient life.
We have no means to ask bacteria or archaea or even rock formations or the Earth itself how they felt about their existence at that time. So we had an absence of life and then we had life.

Biological entities advance in structure and complexity through combination and mutation.

the state of non-existence must have some element of lack to it in order to initiate existence — Yohan

I agree but I would replace 'non-existence,' and 'existence' with non-life and life as without this you would have to assign some purpose and significance to the existence of something which is lifeless like a rock when no lifeform exists to label it a rock or (in the case of a microbe) at least live on it.

Ok, thanks for contributing to my recategorised thread and your further input regarding my two ban threats. I still don't want to be nice to antinatalists, so I will continue to comment around them on TPF and will employ more stealth when dealing with them.
It would be much more fun to challenge them head-on and rant at them and insult their viewpoint with gusto, as well as posting why their viewpoint is completely wrong. We have different views of what trolling is compared to how bad and dangerous viewpoints should be dealt with. I know that one person's defender is another person's terrorist but imo, you pick your camp and raise your standard as best and honestly as you can!

That’s more linguistics and psychology than philosophy of language, but even then, it’s rather too casual and vague for those disciplines too. — Jamal

In my OP I included:
In analytic philosophy, philosophy of language investigates the nature of language and the relations between language, language users, and the world. Investigations may include inquiry into the nature of meaning, intentionality, reference, the constitution of sentences, concepts, learning, and thought.
I consider 'intentionality,' 'constitution of sentences,' etc to be indeed related to linguistics which in turn then seems fair game in 'Analytic Philosophy' or 'Philosophy of language,' but if you don't agree, you don't agree.

Oh, the ban threat card was played very early both times by Xtrix and confirmed by yourself but I would have appreciated the opportunities of a little more dialogue on the issues I described.

I might post something under the feedback category as you suggest but the embers are a bit too cooled at the moment.

Anyway, any comments on the clash between Matt, Jimmy and Jordan?
Do you think Jordan should be allowed to make transphobic quotes on twitter?
Do you think he is transphobic?
If Jordan claims the title of philosopher at times then surely a philosophy forum can comment on what he claims to be true?

I appreciate you as admin staff taking the time to post on this thread, regarding the issues I raised and the issue of 'well-formed OP's.'

I watched the video of Matt Dillahunty and Jimmy Snow on Jordan Peterson and based on the language involved and the fact that the issues under discussion were important and emotive, It was, I felt a good comparator with some of the language used in the antinatalist threads. That's why I used it as I wanted to offer a comparison between exchanges on TPF and other sites. Philosophy of language is a topic allowed on TPF so that is why I landed there also as it seemed important to analyse the reasons why people choose to employ certain language in certain situations and how that is currently being moderated on discussion websites in general.
If the staff opinion was that my thread and its OP was cumbersome and 'all over the place,' and it needed restructuring, then why was I not offered an opportunity to do this?

I appreciate your mention of the feedback process which I admit to not being as aware of as I should have been.

It was the fact that you were just ranting, so there was nothing much of substance there anyway. — Jamal

So why play the ban threat card so quickly, why not 'why are you being so insulting and you just seem to be ranting' as a PM communication? Okay, I might have tried to defend with 'give me some examples of me ranting!' and it would have took some more time to settle things but is such effort not part of skilled moderation or is it just not worth the effort in your opinion and the 'stop or be banned' is your easiest first response?

'streetlight,' is an interesting case which has been discussed a lot in the 'bannings' thread.
In his case I personally would 'leave the door open' for a possible future invite back, maybe on some trial basis, to see if he could tone down the anger a little but I don't have any inside track on the details involved. He was certainly an interesting intellect, based on the very few exchanges I had with him and the fact that I am still a relative newbie on TPF.

It's like Jordan Peterson. I found him initially interesting but I am moving very quickly to your position of completely dismissing him as a dangerously camouflaged, right-wing extremist. I watched this guy (Cody Johnston) below, also rally against Peterson (almost 3 Hours of it). He made a lot of very good points.
I think that in today's world it is vital to do your own research on anyone in the public eye that has significant influence and catches your personal attention and you probably need to continue to do so even if you are convinced enough to become an approver/follower/facilitator of someone.




Do you think that posters on a thread should be threatened with banning if they call each other idiot or dimwit or describe something typed as idiotic or dimwitted? I mean in cases of important and emotive issues that affect the lives of many people. I think skilled moderation is required. I am not suggesting the staff on TPF are unskilled. This thread was an attempt to invoke discussion regarding TPF moderation against twitter moderation or youtube moderation, just as a topic for dialogue. I am trying to not come across as just displaying 'sour grapes' because I was ban threatened but I have a feeling that I am coming across like that. I can only insist that was not my 'hidden reason' behind the thread. But then there is always the 'well he would claim that wouldn't he,' claim.

1. I believe that aliens exist but I don't know that aliens exist.
2. I claim that I might actually be wrong.
3. My claim that I might actually be wrong is true even if aliens happen to exist and I'm not wrong — Michael

This just seems to confirm that belief does not require irrefutable evidence but knowledge does.

You’re displeased with the moderation? If so, I’m curious and interested in seeing an instance of what you regard as heavy handed or whatever. — praxis

Yes, I was threatened twice with banning due to some of my angry responses and insults towards the antinatalists on antinatalist threads. They responded in kind and I think some of them were also threatened with banning. I dont think the ban threat should be trundled out so quickly. I think there could be more dialogue between moderator and disgruntled/angry member before the ban threat card is played. No need to start with a 'warning' why not start with a PM question like 'why are you so angry here....' I know the admin/moderator staff might protest that 'we just dont have the time to do that,' or 'We are not a psyche service,' then ok, at least imo, they will be admitting they are a private concern and their rule is not democratic.

Btw, your OP in this topic is somewhat unclear and apparently not of a philosophical nature so I can easily see why it was moved to the lounge area (to die). Here’s a link to a good guide for producing an OP: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op — praxis

I appreciate your impudence but I have no such need and I reject your opinion on my OP for many reasons, including the mention of 'philosophy of language' in my OP.

Today we no longer see the world as getting better and global warming means in a generation of two the world we took for granted may be irrevocably destroyed. I do not see this as a good time to have children. — Athena

I agree, we have reached a phase of a great deal of social, political, economic and ecological upheaval.
Responsible human stewardship of the planet is failing badly and our current sociopolitical systems cannot cope with the current global population so it's not a good time to have children, especially if you are poor, downtrodden and deliberately disadvantaged which at the moment, is the position of the majority of humans alive.
If we had better global politics and the collection and distribution of resources was organised for the size of population we have and not exclusively for the benefit of the few then we probably could cope with the current population. So, at least the problems are crystal clear. If we can 'sort it out,' then perhaps we can start to expand off planet. If we don't then we will continue to give oxygen to the anti-life people until we do.
If the human population reduces over time due to individual human choice not to have kids and we end up with a more manageable population and we then 'sort things out,' then hopefully we all have the choice back, to freely and positively procreate again, in line with the natural imperative.

:up:

Do you think there is credence in the proposal that there WILL BE a time in the future when a human, a transhuman or a non-human system will be declared as omnimathematical and have some accompanying proof from first principles based on modal logic?

I generally don't mind it but circumstances vary widely, of course, and I can imagine debates where insults are too disruptive or counterproductive — praxis

I think some topics are very emotive and moderation should take more account of that before they threaten with the Banno, I mean ban reaction.

Do you think the moderation here is over the top at times?
— universeness

No. — praxis

Ok, thanks for answering.

I find practically everything that comes out of JP's mouth repellent. And as I mentioned, I didn't care for the way Matt & Jimmy were talking about JP in his absence. In the brief part I watched, a randomly chosen spot about a third of the way through it, they were smugly calling him a prick for something. Granted he is a prick. I guess because they were taking him so seriously to begin with and the smugness is what bugged me — praxis

I understand how you could come to such a viewpoint based on arriving at just the scenes you described rather that what had gone before that part. Before that point, Matt and Jimmy opined (using Jordan's video) why they thought JP is unjustly transphobic. The issue of transsexuality is very emotive for many people. I think Matt Dillahunty's current partner is transsexual and Jimmy Snow is homosexual, so perhaps that's why they use angrier language when debating the issues.

I loved being a grandmother and great-grandmother. — Athena

Sorry, just noticed the tense, why the past tense? Just a typo? a 'd' that shouldn't be there, no alternate horrors I hope.

I already lived the experience of being heartbroken and I don't want to go through the same painful process. — javi2541997

Happened to me three times so far. Dark, nasty and very very painful. It's Humpty Dumpty time, you almost have to put yourself together again from scratch but I really did come back again, each time, stronger but different. You lose the innocent you but my first was far worse than my second which was much worse than my third. I think I am almost immune now. I can still give as much as ever but I have much stronger armour against the 'unexpected.'

:clap: Yeah, at 25, leave an inside light on and a wee door ajar, so that people can notice you and say hello!

I appreciated and understand your caution with those you don't know yet.
To me, it's a bit like the pioneer spirit. Social interaction has risk but can also have great rewards.
Sounds like you can have as many friends and relationships as you want Javi. You just have your own preferred approach and having the choice to get involved or not is yours. That's the kind of freedoms we all insist on, yes?

I guess I never be able to find such respect in real life — javi2541997

The members of this forum are part of real life. You type many interesting things and take nice photo's, why would that change if I met you in person?
I have never married and have no kids. I have been engaged twice' lived with women, had many short relationships but my long-term ones just never worked out. I, like you now, prefer my personal freedom compared to what is offered in a relationship but I am 58 now. Nature has turned its attention towards younger prospects for reproduction. I am now relatively irrelevant in the continuation of the species imperative but under the rules, I am still allowed to have lots of fun!

I will PM you.

Saying that is about fear seems like an odd way of understanding the joys of family. — Athena

:clap: :clap:

I agree.
I like your

This is good. We must test and challenge our logic on a constant base! — Alkis Piskas

Do you have any philosophical musings about why we are compelled to do this, without going off thread!
You don't want to invoke the wrath of the mighty titans, labeled 'mods,' and their terrifying siren call!

We arra mods, We arra mods, We are, We are, We arra mods! :scream:

If you don't feel you can comment without going off thread then you could PM me a response if you want.

I think the reason that this conclusion seems counterintuitive is that even if we claim to be fallibilists there is this intuitive sense that knowledge entails certainty — Michael

I like your introduction of 'fallibility' into the discussion. Fallible, described as 'capable of making mistakes or being wrong.' Fallibility could imo be a candidate for an absolute or objective truth about humans.
I believe @jgill is a mathematician but is he the best mathematician that has ever existed in human history? I think this is the direction of play with concepts such as the omnis. I am currently convinced that we can only ever display an asymptotic approach to the omnis. If jgill was the best ever then would that mean he is not fallible in the subject of maths, he cannot make a mistake. It seems intuitive to me that for him to be omnimathematical, he must demonstrate infallibility in maths, do you agree?

Based on the discussion so far, has your opinion altered in anyway?
Your statement in the OP was:

This strikes me as a somewhat counterintuitive conclusion. — Michael

I assumed this meant that you were undecided whether or not there was a modal logic pathway to strong/good/respectable evidence to support or refute the possibility of an existent omniscient, past, present or future. Is this accurate? and has your position altered any based on the discussion so far?

"I could be wrong" can be true even if I'm not wrong. — Michael

Can you give a real-life example or does this have to firmly stay in propositional logic?
Say about your own attributes for example. I know I am male, could I be wrong? I know I am caucasian, could I be wrong? etc.

Well, you can. You know that her age is 30 even if it might have been that she was 29. There's no paradox here — Banno

She cant be 30 and not 30 at the same time. That's the paradox and if she is 29 then she's not 30 so how can you know she is 30 if she is 29? REAL world.

by having to explain a fairly simple notation while trying to make a point with that notation to neophytes. — Banno

Who you calling a neophyte? Ya neophyte!

Sorry for the late response praxis but you didn't place a reply link in your recent response so I was not informed it was there.

I watched a few second of the video — praxis

Well, thanks for doing that but if you get some free time I would recommend watching more. These people have a significant influence on many many people.

1) There were people taking JP seriously. — praxis

Many people do, he has a very large following and many admirers. I think it is folly to discount such sources of significant influence.

2) The people taking JP seriously were making insulting comments about him. That’s surprises me because I don’t usually mind that sort of thing — praxis

So does that mean that you don't mind heated debate and the use of one or two insults between relatively anonymous people here on TPF? Do you think the moderation here is over the top at times?
That's why I wanted folks to listen to the words/terms thrown at Jordan by Matt and Jimmy and also some of the terms used by Jordan towards twitter and asses whether their choice of phrase attracted you more to the video or repelled you more.

This is where threads go to die. — jgill

:lol: Or more precisely, this is where moderators/administrators, in full monarch mode, put threads they don't really like, to die. One day, come the on-line bloodless revolution, oppressed posters everywhere, from small town discussion websites to full city-sized websites. Our brothers, sisters and gender-varied comrades will rise up and overthrow all privately owned discussion-based webspace and their unelected, aristocratic moderators and administrators and insist that the democratic will of the membership be regularly consulted on all important decisions such as who becomes/stays a moderator/administrator and who gets banned.

I only value that which is physically possible. I also would not connect metaphysical indeterminacy (whatever that might mean) with quantum indeterminacy. As I suggested, omniscience belongs to musings on the supernatural but it remains true that through scientific endeavor, we will learn more in the future, than we know now.

So what does your analysis tell you about whether omniscience or/and absolute truths has/have existed, can exist or will exist?

Well does that not bring us back to the other thread about absolute truths and the proposal that there are no universal absolute truths but we can get pretty close with values we might declare 'constants' such as the mass of an electron but any declared constant will not be absolutely accurate. So we might get close to omniscience or the speed of light in a vacuum but we will never reach it.

The counterintuitive conclusion is that I could be wrong that p is true (even though I know that p is true). — Michael

I get that so if applied to omniscience this shows we land in paradox, does it not?
If it does then does this not suggest omniscience cannot be evidenced by this method so we are left with appeals to metalogic are we not?

What they all have in common is that they are not actual paradoxes because they are based on arbitrary and inexistent elements and/or facts.
— Alkis Piskas

Yes — jgill

But, is it not the same for the liars paradox or the barbers paradox? Why are they 'actual paradoxes?
I mean 'This statement is false,' is not well defined, is it? I would call this arbitrary, a self-referential statement that states it is false, but based on what?
If the barber only shaves those who do not shave themselves then who shaves the barber?
Also very arbitrary and inexistent as any real barber can shave themselves regardless of what propositional logic demands.