I really can't be bothered with this much more. This whole sorry thread has just been one long saga of bubblefish evading, ignoring, equivocating, obfuscating, using language bizarrely and inconsistently, and generally being deliberately vague about what he's saying. Now we appear to be going through another phase of bubb jumping on the bandwagon of any philosophical or scientific theory mentioned and claiming that it supports OS012. I can see why bubb is a creative writer: his writing is certainly creative in the same way the creative accounting is creative i.e., it is inaccurate and dishonest.
Most depressingly of all I still haven't got him to stick to a meaning of "objective". Didn't JonnyFive go through all of this about 15 pages back?
An objective and true idea contains information that is mutually observable to be true to it's value relative to 0, 1, and 2.
By saying "objective *and* true" you are implying that statements can be objective *and* something else.
If i say "The earth is ruled by repetians", is that not objectivly FALSE? Yet, would you honestly say that is an 'objective' statement?
And yet here you are denying that a statement can be objective and false.
Objective is a truth value, it relates to TRUTH.
No, no, no, no, no. Objective is not a truth value! The possible truth values are "true", "false" and (if you're using trivalent logic) "unknown" or (some other value). Please check the wikipedia entry for “logical value”, I can’t post URLs yet.
You have implied before that "objective" means the same thing as "true" (and then blathered on about it actually having things in common... sharing values with... relative to the false... blah blah blah). If that is the case, why bother qualifying statements as "objective *and* true"?
"Objective" describes the referentiality of a statement and its confirmability/falsifiability. Objective statements are those that refer to the real world in concrete (i.e., non-subjective) terms and whose truth value can (in principle) be discovered (identically) by anyone. Furthermore the truth value of an objective statement is independent of the stater.
OS 012 is a metalogical system.
...
Objective is a truth value, it relates to TRUTH. It only relates to false and mystery when the objective truth is that a statement is either FALSE or MYSTERIOUS.
...
well, it's [your summary is] as close as saying 'the earth circles the sun' when describing the elliptical orbit in newtonian physics.
...
OS 012 distinguishes three limits to truth values in our perception of reality, i.e we percieve reality through our ideas. This is a logical assignment, not a hueristic. It is actual, mathematical, and reasonable.
Ok, so from all of this I gather that I was reasonably close to the mark in saying that OS012 is meant to be a metalogic that ascribes levels of reference (objective, subjective, mystery, unknowable, whatever...) to statements. This appears to be the main content of your problem with Randi referring to Steorn or Bush and WMD's, that basically they said something was true (objective) when they didn't actually know (mystery).
Fair comment, people should be honest about declaring their level of certainty. But we have to live with the fact that we know nothing for certain except "I exist" and we have to live our lives through induction and the balance of probability. Far from giving you real "certainty at the base of your knowldge tree" (as you put it) all mystery does is make you certain that you are uncertain. This doesn't solve anything and, as many people have said before, is just a celebration of ignorance. The fact remains that if you want to respond to any statement other than by waiting and seeing you need to get more evidence or take your best guess, and you have not overcome that problem.
However, the idea is potentially a useful tool for discussion and I can see why you'd want it as a dialectic. If you could logically prove that a statement that someone thought was objective was actually subjective or unknowable it could help discussions progress. As someone (drkitten, zaay?) said before, reassessing your level of knowledge is a good thing and should be encouraged. However your system suffers from several fatal weaknesses, all of which have been brought up before:
(i) It is not intuitive, I think that all the rejections that you have received on this and other threads are enough proof of that.
(ii) It relies on people actually agreeing to use it. This would depend on people initially being open to the possibility that what they think they know they only actually believe and could be wrong. The cases where this would be really useful (fundamentalists etc.) are precisely the cases where people will refuse to use this system for this very reason. You earlier said that unreasonable people will not reach a resolution using OS012 but reasonable people will. I'm sorry to break this to you bubb, but if reasonable people sit down to discuss something they will probably reach a resolution regardless of what discussion technique they use. In fact this is a pretty good working definition of "reasonable people"!
(iii) It appears to only allow objective and true statemements into the first category. Which means that in the second category you get objective false statements (e.g., "the moon is made of mozzarella") and subjective statements (e.g., "Betty is hotter than Wilma") into the second category. These are such different types of statements that to conflate them is just weird and potentially scuppers your system. Similarly the third value conflates unknowable statements (e.g., "there is life after death") and statements that can be known in the future (e.g, "tomorrow bubb will explode") and some others. I think zooterkin brought this all up over at badscience.net
(iv) You have provided no detail as to
how it works i.e., you have not provided any information on how it logically proves that a statement falls into a particular category. You've hiden behind claims of it being copyright protected and not wanting to put it in the public domain yet (very much like Steorn!), but then why did you bring it here if you're not prepared to provide the details that will allow people to critique it properly (more shades of Steorn). Most people can assess the objectivity/subjectivity/unknowability of a statement anyway, even if they have to be pushed to do so. So how would OS012 help?
(v) Finally and most damningly you have provided absolutely no evidence
that it works. You have provided no examples of logically proving statements to be objective/subjective/mystery/whatever. And please do not say "this thread" because we've come almost 30 pages, which is pretty much as far as I think most people are prepared to go and we still fundamentally disagree: you maintain that your system is useful, everyone else "knows" with about 99.9% certainty that it is not.
