How do you know that what you believe in is true if you can't express it? — Manuel

↪Tarskian Yes, yes, all that. So what? Give an example of one of these unstatable true sentences... — Banno

:smirk:

:roll: Big effin' whup. Nothing new in this insight – approximating, not "incompleteness" (another reified / Platonic abstraction) – since Eudoxus' method of exhaustion¹ (e.g. squaring the circle). Also, merelogy²: parts (e.g. reason) cannot equal, let alone exceed, the whole (e.g. reality) to which they belong (i.e. in which they are inscribed-entangled) – i.e. reality is in our reach yet also exceeds our grasp because we are real and nothing more – e.g. Gödel has only axiomatized and Heisenberg / Schödinger have only instrumentalized this formal-merelogical limit that constrains epistemic / cognition (pace Kant).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exhaustion [1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology [2]

Nothing new in this insight – approximating, not "incompleteness…" — 180 Proof

Approximation can be incomplete, as in the case of pi. More to the point, strategic incompleteness doesn’t have a specified boundary it can approach; all correspondences operating under strategic incompleteness are relative without any universal standard of reference, so the field of epistemology as defined by its grammar is such that no one can speak final words about what the attributes of the abstract form should be.

Reification has only a weak form under strategic incompleteness because no systems are finalized into hard boundaries.

Since strategic incompleteness posits only unfinished parts of different sizes incompletely related, with no finalization of systemization:

parts (e.g. reason) cannot equal, let alone exceed, the whole (e.g. reality) to which they belong (i.e. in which they are inscribed-entangled) – i.e. reality is in our reach yet also exceeds our grasp because we are real and nothing more… — 180 Proof

The above doesn’t stand as its counter-narrative. The argument that parts cannot exceed their whole is foundational to strategic incompleteness. This limitation is the reason why systemization is incomplete; if not, the part would be able to contain the whole of itself, a paradox. This is why there is no rational origin of anything (and why your Deist god is necessary to initiate existence), and thus the point of view of strategic incompleteness says there is no beginning and no end, only partial approaches to same.

"The overwhelmingly vast majority of truth cannot be expressed by language" is ambiguous. Is it to be understood, as I think Tarskian does, as saying that there are true statements that cannot be stated, (a contradiction), or is it to be understood as that while any particular truth can be stated, not every truth can ever be stated, which is a simple consequence of there being transfinite numbers. — Banno

Quoting myself. A bad sign. Might try this with an analogue.

Supose you are building a deck, which will have forty floor boards screwed to joists. You have four hundred floorboards.

Now it's true that the overwhelmingly vast number of floorboards cannot be screwed to joists. But it is not true that any one floorboard cannot be screwed to the joists.

We can see this by asking to be shown a floorboard that cannot be screwed to the joists. And the answer is, they all can.

Similarly, even supposing that it is true that the overwhelmingly vast majority of truths cannot be expressed by language, it does not follow that any particular truth cannot be expressed in language.

So we ask, show an example of a true statement that cannot be stated. And the answer is, they can all be stated.

Good analogue. I had similar thoughts with respect to

Though, to split the difference, I agree with

If someone points out, as @Tarskian did, that the set of unexpressed sentences is larger than the set of expressed sentences I'd agree, but would not come to the conclusion that the title of the OP states.



And I wouldn't bother with making statements about "the overwhelmingly vast majority" after that, as obviously those are the words of the bean counters who want a ledger to prove a point, which philosophy doesn't bother with (when it's good).

Though, to split the difference, I agree with ↪unenlightened — Moliere

Well, of course Un's right. @Unenlightened is always right, the bastard. Best just to ignore his posts, else he bring all these threads to an end, leaving us with no alternative but to engage with the real world.

:D

True.

Approximation can be incomplete ... — ucarr

:roll:

Reification has only a weak form under strategic incompleteness because no systems are finalized into hard boundaries.

Another non sequitur.

your Deist god ...

Ad hominem. Besides, I'm not a "deist" and do not espouse "deism".

... to initiate existence

I have neither claimed nor implied that "existence" is/was "initiated".