Incorrect assumption. Some truths are beyond the knowability by humans, by way of complexity or escaping detection.
— god must be atheist

Prove it! — TheMadFool

6. Know p is true & Know p is unknown [possible if 3/5]

7. Know p is true [from 6 Simplification] — TheMadFool

Yes, I would think this is non controversial. I was just trying to write it down somewhere, not restart the debate. — Olivier5

The seeming paradox is due to adopting a point of view that lays outside of the world of human experience, outside of time and space — Olivier5

from datetime import datetime
import random
import time

random.seed()
def make_string():
   return ''.join((chr(65+random.randint(0,25)) for n in range(8)))

def generate_samples():
    return sorted([make_string() for n in range(3)])

def generate_proposition():
    x, y, z = generate_samples()
    return f'"{y}" is lexically prior to "{z}" but successive to "{x}".'

def generate_list():
    return [generate_proposition() for n in range(10)]

the_list = generate_list()
print(f'The current time is {datetime.now()}.')
time.sleep(60) # Wait one minute prior to exposure to any minds
for i, n in enumerate(the_list, 1):
    print(f'{i}. {n}')

Within the boundaries of human experience, a proposition is some statement that someone proposes, at some point in time. — Olivier5

Within the boundaries of human experience, a proposition is some statement that someone proposes, at some point in time. — Olivier5

it makes no sense to say that a proposition no one knows about is true. — Olivier5

The proposition needs to exist first. — Olivier5

Or if you prefer, it could only exist in the mind of God. Or maybe some superpowerful alien... Not in a human mind. — Olivier5

Once it is proposed, then and only then can the question of its truth be asked, and thus be put into existence, and only then, can the question be answered (or not). — Olivier5

But maybe I'm not getting the point (happens on a regular basis) — EricH

If I name it, I make it propositional. But okay, maybe you are right. Truth are description, therefore there is not such thing as an unknown truth. — Olivier5

6. Know p is true & Know p is unknown [possible if 3/5]

7. Know p is true [from 6 Simplification]
— TheMadFool

7 is invalid reasoning, because you drop off an assumption that can't be dropped. You use the effect of this "drop" in the argument later. However, the knowledge that p is true, does not affect whatsoever the fact that p is not known. The two are independent. Not related, yet both apply. Therefore you can't drop one of the two (and you also can't drop both of them). — god must be atheist

Funny.

This can only be proven by an example. And if I know the example, then it is impossible to use that example.

On the other hand, without proof it is acceptable, that the human mind is only capable of some complexity but not of all complexity. For instance, religionists will tell you that god is so complex, that we can't fathom his thoughts. This is an example which has no proof value, but enough creative force to make you see the point.

The escaping from detection is easier to see. We sense the world and create our thoughts based on our senses. For truth we have to rely on a model of the world which model we built relying on our senses. However, we can't trust our senses. Maybe they relate to use reality, maybe they don't. Thus, all the knowledge and truth we have accumulated about the world and its truhts, may be misguided, and completely off. Again, how does one prove this? It is completely unprovable but totally conceivable. — god must be atheist

When we talk about truths. there has to be something which is about reality, that something then checked if it corresponds to reality - if it does, that something is said to be true or is a truth.

With propositions, we have that something viz. propositions.

If someone claims truths can be nonpropositional, I'm at a loss as to what it is (the something) that can be true. — TheMadFool

Right. But if truth can only be propositional, then the Fitch is a non starter. Propositions need to be proposed before they can be true or not true. An unknown proposition does not exist. — Olivier5

1. "IHLLVJCU" is lexically prior to "VDTSHSGB" but successive to "EPOOTTLS". — InPitzotl

You think your machine proposed this proposition? — Olivier5

Proposition 6 was generated more or less around 10:03:44pm local time on this day October 1, 2021. But nobody proposed it at 10:03:44pm. In fact, nobody read it until it least 10:04:44pm. — InPitzotl

YOU, when you read the output, understands it a certain way, to mean a certain thing. — Olivier5

You then create the proposition — Olivier5

Likewise, a statement does not exist before it is stated by some author or another. A phrase does not exist before being phrased. — Olivier5

within human experience, it makes no sense to say that a proposition no one knows about is true. — Olivier5

S1 contains those propositions that have already been made and those that are yet to be made. — TheMadFool

did not state proposition 6 at 10:04:44pm. I did not author proposition 6 at 10:04:44pm. I did not phrase proposition 6 at 10:04:44pm. — InPitzotl

No, it does not. An unproposed statement cannot be a proposition; at best it is an unproposition. — Olivier5

You did take what was a bunch of dots on paper — Olivier5

and you did make a proposition out of it by assigning some meaning to it. — Olivier5

The key is to remember that a statement not in existence cannot be true or false. It needs to exist first. i.e. be stated. Then and only then can it be assigned a truth value. — Olivier5

ETA: Here is roughly what I think I'm doing. You're generally proposing that there's a time relationship here: First, a proposition is proposed by a proposer (and thereby understood). Then, we can ask whether it's true or not. Finally, we can answer it.

I've arranged a scenario where this is flipped around. First, we can say the propositions will be true. Then, the propositions are created. Only after that, they are read and for the first time understood. — InPitzotl

Likewise, when I read proposition 6, I could look at it and say, "awww, what a cute little grammatically correct true English sentence!" — InPitzotl

There was no paper. As mentioned, it was a 4K LG monitor. This actually happened; it was not a thought experiment. — InPitzotl

What the machine does — Olivier5

That's a stretch. Your machine-generated "sentences" would strike an odd chord in a natural conversation between people. — Olivier5

"awww, what a cute little grammatically correct true English sentence!" — InPitzotl

The proposition needs to exist first. — Olivier5

within human experience, it makes no sense to say that a proposition no one knows about is true. — Olivier5

This is demonstrated by my ability to meaningfully say that this program generates only true propositions. — InPitzotl

So when my little sister's doll used to say "Maman" and "J'ai faim", it was not just playing a recording? — Olivier5

It was actually stating the proposition: "I am hungry"? — Olivier5

If my sister's doll was not saying "j'ai faim" but instead "This is a random noise" and would then make a random noise (as she was found to do), it would be exactly like your computer. — Olivier5

The argument of the recording doesn't hold either, because you did record the phrase "is lexically prior to" in your code, and it's the only meaningful part of the output sentences, just like for the doll... — Olivier5

That is a red herring — InPitzotl

It's not. It's the core of my argument that by coding in this phrase "is lexically prior to", you created a pattern your computer would follow — Olivier5

to compose sentences that have nothing new in them, — Olivier5

These sentences are mere recordings, — Olivier5

the sentences produced are not actually understood by the machine, and therefore it is hard to say they are proposed by the machine. — Olivier5

Rather they are produced mechanically. — Olivier5

Consider that we humans repeat things humans say all of the time, — InPitzotl

The first time these three strings were lexically compared in human history is very likely on October 1, 10:03:44pm. — InPitzotl

But we mean it, when we do so. — Olivier5

A mere recording or mechanical production of a sentence cannot invest meaning in that sentence. — Olivier5

And a sentence without meaning or intention is not a proposition. — Olivier5