PROBLEM STATEMENT?

( … )?

Whereas;

1.3.3 – TRUTH (RECIPROCITY IN WORD)
WHERE;

Fully Informed, Complete, Truthful Speech Consists In:

Testimony that Satisfies Demand for Infallibility in the context in question, including, liability given the number of people and severity of the imposition of costs on their demonstrated interests as a consequences of failure.

|Tests of Truth|: Sufficiency of Testifiability vs Decidability vs Liability vs Population vs Severity vs Risk Against The Spectrum of Irreciprocities.

AND 
1.3.3.1 – DECIDABILITY
WHERE Decidability consists in:

• Decidability is a criterion used to evaluate whether a statement can be tested and resolved as true or false.
• While Truth is a criterion used to evaluate whether a statement is testifiable in all dimensions humans are capable of testifying to.
• And Liability is the criterion used to determine whether a satement can satisfy the demand for infallibilty in the context in question,
• Determined by the number of people dependent upon it,
• and the severity of the effect on their demonstrated interests.

AND

Decidability requires bottom up survival from falsification by the possibility of construction from first principles, and truthfulness requires top down survival from falsification by tests of consistency, correspondence, and coherence with observables. And decidable truth consists of surviving both the bottom up and top down attempts at falsification. (This is also the difference between computation and mathematics, as well as operationalism and verbal logic of sets.)

THEREFORE;

|Decidability| Decidable(computable) < Discretionary(Reasonableness) < Choice(preference, presumed good) < Random Selection (undecidable) < In-actionable < Incoherent

THEREFORE;

Tests of Decidability by Decidable Truth,

REQUIRES

Tests of the Testifiability of Testimonial Truth (Truthfulness).

WHERE;

Tests of Decidability Consists In:

1. In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if information sufficient for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the system(ie: grammar) in the absence of appeal (default to) intuition.
2. In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary).

Or;
If DISCRETION, by appeal to (default to) intuition or preference, is necessary then the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reasoning (in the narrow sense) from calculation (in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm).

AND WHERE;
The Sufficiency of Decidability consists in the Spectrum of Demand for Infallibility of Decidability, Consists of:

|Sufficiency of Decidability|: Intelligible > Reasonable > Actionable > Ethical and Moral > Normative > Judicial > Scientific > Logical > Tautological.

BEFORE
Me:

• Intelligible: (Observe) Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
• Reasonable: (Orient) Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.
• Actionable: (Decide)Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.
  
  DURING (Action)
  Others:
• Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.
• Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
• Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values.
• 
  AFTER (Next ‘Before’ condition)
  Informational (Public Speech)
•  
• Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (True)
• Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity
• Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.

AND;

1.3.3.2 – TESTIFIABILITY
WHERE; 
GIVEN;
the Human Faculties that limit testifiability:

|Human Faculties|: Sense > Perception > Auto Association > Prediction > Imagination >  Attention > Comparison > Reason > Seelction

1. Sense (stimuli)
   … … Perception (composition)
   … … … Auto-Association
   … … … … Imagination Facility (prediction)
   … … … … … Attention
2. Logic Facility (constant relations)
   … … Comparison (competition)
   … … … Reason Facility (wayfinding, permutation)
   … … … … Selection (decision, choice)
3. Grammar facility (statements)
   … … Episode Formation (organization)
   … … … Disambiguation (indexing)
   … … … … Wayfinding (navigation)
   … … … … … Search For Agreement(Cooperation) (understanding, agreement – or not)

AND;
Given the human grammatical facility: 

The Human Grammatical Facility consists of the evolution of human navigational way-finding between locations, places, spaces, and objects, then into human memory of and the ability to manipulate states of spaces, objects, and people from one state to another, then into description of episodes (contexts), actors(people, objects, processes) in states, and the operations (processes, actions) that change states, then into new episodes (states) by the cognitive process of wayfinding: by “continous recursive disambiguation” of ambiguity into an unambiguous episode (context) that others can agree with(understand, true, cooperate) or disagree with (fail to undrstand, false, not cooperate.)

1. Grammar facility (statements)
   … … Paradigms (‘metaphysics’, ‘dimensions’, ‘episodes’)
   … … Vocabulary
   … … … Sounds
   … … … Signs (acts, actions)
   … … … Marks (records)
   … … … … accidental
   … … … … intentional
   … … … … … Mark
   … … … … … Symbol
   … … … … … … Glyph
   … … … … … Pictogram
   … … … … … Picture
   … … … … … Picture Series
   … … … … … Animation
2. And capacity for logical:
   … imprecision
   … inflation
   … conflation
   … failure of disambiguation
3. And therefore capacity for (precision)
   … Measurements
   … Testimonal Langauge
   … Persuasive Langauge
   … Narrative Language
   … Ordinary Language
   … Idiomatic Language
   … Fictional Language
   … Fraudulent Language
   … Denial, Reversal, Projection and Reflection

THEREBY;
Producing the Spectrum of Human Communication Facilities

WHERE GIVEN;

The construction of communication:

|Communication|: Human Senses > Human Embodiment > Human Perception > Human Memory > Human Spatial-Temporal Organizational Facility > Human Wayfinding Facility > Human Grammatical Facility > Permissible Dimensions > Resulting Paradigms > Measurements(vocabulary) > Names(Nouns) > State Changes(Verbs) > Agreements(Yes/No,True/False,Comprehensible/Not) > Recursion(Combination) > Transactions (Events) > Ledgers (Episodes) > Journals(Narratives). 

WHERE;

Dimensions

What dimensions of measurement are permissible when attempting to measure some context, where that context is a subset of experience?
(Note that there are a large number but limited number of dimensions percievable by man, and most dimensions consist of sets of dimensions for the purpose of disambiguation.) 

Paradigms

These dimensions of measurement produce a paradigm or set of dimensions that limit the information we can include and consider in any ‘calculation’ (in the loosest sense). This assists us in disambiguation of experience into increasingly precise measurements.

Vocabulary

Vocabulary consists of measurements organized into scales that describe a dimension within the paradigm. This assists us in disambiguation of experience into even more precise measurements.

Nouns(Names of States in time)

Nouns(general) and Adjectives(precision) consists of names of states in time.

Verbs

Verbs(general) and Adverbs(Precision) consist of Names of Transitions(abstract) or Operations(actions) over time.

Agreements

Agreements consist of Tests of Equality between the communication used by the author, and understanding produced in the audience. (Including the self.)

THEREFORE;
RESULTING IN:

The “Spectrum of Grammars (rules) of continous recursive disambiguation within a paradigm” for the purpose of communicating measurements within this paradim such that they are sufficiently unambiguous for communication, understanding, and agreement or not. In other words, all langauge consists of measurements of varying degrees of precision to imprecision to deception.

1. Communication Facility (“Language”)
   … Measurements
   … … .Formal Science
   … … … Logics (deflationary Grammars)
   … … … Mathematics
   … … … Algorithms
   … … Physical Sciences
   … … … Physics
   … … … Chemistry
   … … … Biology
   … … … Sentience (Consciousness)
   … … Behavioral Sciences
   … … … Metaphysics (Language)
   … … … Psychology
   … … … Sociology
   … Disciplines (Applied)
   … … … Medicine (Repair and Maintenance)
   … … … Engineering (Transformation)
   … … … Accounting, Finance, Economics (Measurement)
   … … … Economics (Cooperation)
   … … … History (Categorization and Summation)
   … … … Law (Dispute Resolution)
   … Communication
   … … Testimony (warrantied by due diligence
   … … Rhetorics (argumentative, persuasive Grammars)
   … … Written (Formal) Language
   … … ORDINARY LANGUAGE (Informal, colloquial, and Idiomatic)
   … … Narrative (description)
   … Education
   … … Narrations (inflationary Grammars)
   … … Storytelling (loading, framing)
   … Deceits
   … … Fictionalism
   … … … Pseudoscience -> Magic (including math)
   … … … Idealism-> Surrealism, and
   … … … Supernaturalism->Occult
   … … Obscurantism (Obscuring, Overloading)
   … … … Misdirection (Deceit)
   … … … Propaganda
   … … … Disinformation
   … … … Social Construction
   … … Fraud (for gain)
   … … Undermining
   … … Harm (Evil, for harm regardless of gain)

AND;
WHERE;

The Grammar of Testifiable Speech Consists in the 

1. Fully expanded Complete Sentences
2. Consisting of all actors, actions, and consequences of change in state
3. From an observer’s point of view (first person)
4. In promissory form
   … Stated or Implied beginning with “I promise that …”
5. In operational vocabulary (as actions)
6. In testimonial form 
   … where all descriptions are observable and testifiable by the testifier (first person) (Not reading minds, etc.)
7. Absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, were…)
   … Absent ambiguity, conflation, inflation, loading, framing by removing the copula, and therefor requiring explicity description of means of existence, unless expressing the continuous tense. (such as  standing, speaking, digging, visiting).
8. And where any assumption you made or make is declared as such.
9. Including all changes in state
10. Producing a series of testable transactions.

AND;
Where Grammatical Testifiability consists of:

Expanding any ordinary language, from ideomatic to casual, to formal, to formal written, into grammatically testifiable form, where in can then be falsified as surviving Grammatical Testifiability or not. 

As such one need not necessarily speak in Grammatically Testifable form, but that one’s testimony must survive Grammatical Testifiabiilty.

AND;
Where the Criteria for Testifiable Speech Consists in:

Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series:

1. Existential > The Physical Laws of the Universe
   … 1. Realism >
   … 2. Naturalism >
2. Possible > The Formal Laws of the Universe
   … 7. Operational – Demonstrable Sequence >
   … 8. Empirical – Externally Correspondent >
   … 9. Logical – Internally Consistent >
   … 10. Unambiguous – categorical identity >
3. Rational > Behavioral (Natural) Laws of the Universe
   … 10. Rational Choice – Demonstrated Preference >
   … … 11. Incentives – Demonstrated Interest >
   … … … 12. Body, Mind, Memory, Effort, Time
   … … … 13. Mates, Offspring, Kin
   … … … 14. Status, Reputation, Kith
   … … … 15. Several Interests (in many forms)
   … … … 16. Common Interests (in many forms)
   … 17. Reciprocal >
   … … 18. Productive (reciprocal increase in capital)
   … … 19. Exhaustively Informed (due diligence gainst deceit)
   … … 20. Voluntary Transfer >
   … … 20. Free of Negative Externality >
   … 21. Organizable >
   … … 22. Power Distribution of Law >
   … … 23. Pareto Distribution of Assets >
   … … 24. Nash Distribution of Rewards >
4. Survivable > Evolutionary Laws of the Universe 
   … 25. Prevents Regression to the Mean (loss of biological capital)
   … 25. Preserves Natural Selection (selection by merit)
   … 27. Increases Adaptivity (biological capital)
5. Complete >
   … 26. Limits, Completeness, Full Accounting,
   … 27. Consistency, Coherence, Parsimony
6. Competitive – in the market for theories
   … 29. Sufficient – Satisfies the Demand For Infallibility
   … 30. Parsimony – In competition with other testimonies
7. Warrantable >
   … 32. (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
   … 33. (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
   … 34. (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.

AND;
1.3.3.3 –  EPISTEMOLOGY
WHERE;
The confidence in our knowledge is produced by the epistemology life cycle consists of a series of recursive steps:

|Knowledge, Epistemic Process|: Problem, Question, Experience  -> Observation -> [stage: hypothesis, theory, establsihed theory, law] -> Falsification -> and either Fail and Repeat, Restart or -> Increase Falsification, Repeat.

AND
WHERE;
the epistemic process requires;

|Epistemology|: Fact > Theory > Law

1. A Fact consists in a repeatable test producing a repeatable observation, recorded as a commensurable(standard) measurement, by instrumentation, thereby limiting human bias and error, within the context a hypothesis or theory.
2. A Theory consists of an explanation for cause and effect, and a logic, formula or measurement that describes the state, transformation, or states, that has been tested in the market for applied theories and so far survived.
3. A Law consists of the description of the theory in formula form, whether logical, ordinal, or mathematical and cardinal, that describes a irreducible first principle consistent with all observables.

AND
WHERE;
The epistemic process (cycle) consists in; A Sequence of disambiguation by cycles of:

|Disambiguation Cycle|: Problem -> Theory -> Test

Because all new knowledge consists of the discovery of wayfinding our way to a solution using the human wayfinding facility applied to that faculty we call reason.

And the full epistemic cycle of continuous recursive disambiguation using the disambiguation cycle consists of:

|Epistemic Cycle|: Problem > Free Association > Hypothesis > Working Theory > Settled Theory > Law > Metaphysical Presumption.

WHERE;

1) Free association: results from Observation (Experience).
2) Hypothesis: results from The Test of Reasonableness (Mental test)
… Reasonable: wiIthin the limits of your ability and knowledge, including whith knowledge you can obtain without attempting an experiment.
3) Working Theory: results from Performing Due Diligence (Existential test)
… A Physical Test: within the limits of your ability to perform and measure a a test against the real world.
4) Scientific, Settled, or Established Theory: results from the test of Survival in the market for application (market test)
… An Applied Test: within the limits of the market for the application of the theory.
5) Law if Mathematical or First Principle if not mathematical (Survival): results from Testing the Exhaustion of Falsification: Reduced to Irreducible first cause (First Principle)
… A Surival Test: A exhaustively tested irreducible description for which the market for application has eliminated all known means of falsification.
6) Habituation into metaphysical presumptions: results from Survival in the market for Convention.
… Survival by integration into the presumptions (metaphysics) of the population as a general rule or rule of thumb.
7) Repeating this cycle: results from Falsification and reformation (re-falsification) by the failure of any step in this cycle.
… When a new application has been discovered that falsifies the degree of precision of the theory, established theory, or law, requring alteration of the law to address the newly required degree of precision.

Note: while the market for hypotheses produces majority falsehood, the general trend in science is not necessarily that surviving theories are falsified, but that they discover a demand for increase in precision. 

AND
1.3.3.4 – TESTIFIABLE TRUTH
WHERE;
Truth consists of the series:

|Truth|: Treason > Sedition > Fraud > Deceit > Dishonesty > Incaution > Honesty > Reasonableness > Truthfulness > Testifiable Truth > Decidable Truth > Ideal Truth > Analytic Truth > Tautological Truth.

1. Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
2. Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
3. Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.  The Completely disambiguated description constructed exclusively from first prinicples. We tend only to know reductio ideal truths.)
4. Decidable Truth: Truthtfulness that satisfies the demand for infallibility in the context inquestion. (See Decidability below.)
5. Testifiable Truth: That testimony you give that survives the tests of possibility of testifiabiilty in the dimensions it is possible for humans to testify to: realism, naturalism, identity(unambiguity), logical consistency, operational possibility, observable external correspondence, rational choice within the limits of bounded rationality, reciprocal rational choice, complete and fully accounted within stated limits, and within the limits of restitutability.
6. Truthfulness: High Due Diligence: A Performative Truth: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
   1. Hypothesis (reasoning)
   2. Theory (empirical testing)
   3. Survival (survived empirical testing in the market)
7. Reasonableness: Medium Due Diligence: that testimony (description) you give, as justification for your reporting of your belief, justification, preference, coice, or actions with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
8. Honesty: Low Due Diligence: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
9. Incaution: No due diligence. That explanation you would give without self regulation self auditing and not compensating for human tendency to ‘fill in’ by assumption and prediction, loading nad framing.
10. Dishonesty: Evading any due diligence: That explanation you would give with knowledge that your explanation is incomplete, biased, loaded, framed, conflated, inflated, and niether testimony nor testifiable.
11. Deceit: That explanation you would give with the intent to mislead away from the truth, that is neither testimony nor tesitifiable, nor even excusable as the imprecision of ordinary language, or plausible deniability given our tendency to bias.
12. Fraud: That explanation you would give with the intent to directly defraud, that is not testimony, testifiable, excusable, or plausible, because of the motive of self interest in the involuntary transfer of a private, semi-private, or institutional demonstrated interest from another or others to you, or you and yours.
13. Sedition: That explanation you would give with intent to indirectly defraud or harm the common demonstrated interests of others, that is not testimony, testifiable, excusable, plausible because of the motive of your intersts and others interest in committing that harm.
14. Treason: That explanation you would give with intent to indirectly defraud or harm the common demonstrated interests of others, for the benefit of others external to the polity, that is not testimony, testifiable, excusable, plausible because of the motive of your intersts and others interest in committing that harm.

THEREFORE;

In summary, Truth consists of testimony sufficient for the satisfaction of demand for decidability in the context in question, given the consequences and liability for error. And therefore truth consists of insurance of preservation of self determination by sovereignty reciprocity.

WHERE;

Honesty, due diligence, truthfulness, testifiability, decidability, liability and warranty, used together, defend against the Series of Irreciprocities within the limits of Sufficiency for Decidability (Meaning, who is to be harmed and by how much).