>> Formulas cannot be used to prove anything I want, because RP is not a
>> formal theory despite including formulae. Likewise, physics is not a
>> formal theory despite including formulae. RP's all formulae are not
>> tautologies, but contingent, and their contingency depends on
>> observations - namely, that one specific kind of observation is
>> possible. Would you like to hear more? Is this relevant to you?
> Yes, please.
The truth value of RP depends on whether it is possible to distinguish
the following kinds of cognitive experiences, or kinds of romantic
quality, from each other:
-internal and external sensory perceptions
If it is possible to distinguish these four types of romantic quality
from each other, it follows, than a certain instance of RP, formulated
with "accuracy" set to 4, is true. That instance would include the
theory of static value patterns in LILA.
If the distinctions cannot be made, there is a problem. The problem
could maybe be resolved by tweaking the emergence, eg. to the form that
Dave (LS) suggested. This is why I initially began this conversation -
to get some advice whether these cognitive experiences can be
distinguished from each other. That is the only statement in RP whose
truth value cannot be resolved by purely formal means. If it is false,
all other statements of RP are apparently rendered irrelevant. This
statement is also the way in which RP solves the symbol grounding
problem. In addition, it is hopefully an outline of the way a more
sophisticated theory will solve that problem in the future.