It is the subset of truth that can be converted to the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic distinction, thus become directly subject to computational analysis.
There seems to be a very large piece missing from your account, but I’ve been unable to have you recognise it.
Try this: what warrants the analyticity of a statement such as “the cat is on the mat”?
My suggestion: the cat’s being on the mat.
That requires information from the current state of the world thus is out-of-scope of “true on the basis of meaning expressed in language” for general knowledge.
Then your account simply does not tell us how to differentiate between what is true and what isn’t.
Which is something I think I pointed out previously.
My 28 year goal has been to make
“true on the basis of meaning expressed in language”
reliably computable for the entire body of GENERAL
knowledge. LLMs become reliable truth tellers.
Yes, and that’s admirable, but that the cat is on the mat is not true on the basis of meaning expressed in language, but on the basis of the cat’s being on the mat.
Yet imagine if we had a completely reliable arbiter of truth.
Cats on mats will not save the world. A reliable arbiter of
truth can save the world.
Then we would not need your system. All it seems to do is to tell us what can be said after we know that the cat is on the mat.
It could definitively answer these two questions:
To what degree is climate change cause by humans a very serious problem? How do you know?
Did election fraud have any effect what-so-ever on the outcome of the 2020 presidential election? How do you know?
So it is not supposed to be a general device for deciding what it true and what isn’t? Then I’ve misunderstood.
I’m not seeing anything useful here.
An actual operational system that can be physically implemented cannot be literally all knowing. It can be very close to all knowing within the finite set of general knowledge.
So you think it is useless unless it has magical powers?
No. I think it would be useful if it told us that “the cat is on the mat” is true.