# Language and Perceptual Controlled Variables

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/language-and-perceptual-controlled-variables/6188>\
**Category:** CSG2011\
**Created:** [November 7, 2011, 4:48am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/language-and-perceptual-controlled-variables/6188 "2011-11-07T04:48:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 4:48am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/language-and-perceptual-controlled-variables/6188/1 "2011-11-07T04:48:11Z")

</div>

(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.11.17.26NZT)

In some discussion with Bill he says that language is  
a perceptual controlled variable. I think I understand this. (Can’t be  
sure I do).

If this is the case, language is connected  
to theory and mathematics via logic. Language is made up of three types of  
logic, Imperatives, Declaratives and Interrogatives. If language is made  
up of logic then logic is also a controlled variable and so then by implication  
is mathematics. Basically all our knowledge then by implication is a controlled  
variable.

Godel then points out that the following  
statement is a part of the system: a statement P which states “there is no  
proof of P”. If P is true, there is no proof of it. If P is false, there  
is a proof that P is true, which is a contradiction. Therefore it cannot be  
determined within the system whether P is true.

Oh well, just to confuse the heck out of  
myself.

Regards

Gavin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AveryAndrews](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/779978/32.png) [@AveryAndrews](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/AveryAndrews)\
**Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 6:21am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/language-and-perceptual-controlled-variables/6188/2 "2011-11-07T06:21:26Z")

</div>

(Avery Andrews 2011.7.11 17.19 Eastern Oz DST)

> a statement P which states “there is no proof of P”. If P is true, there is no proof of it. If P is false, there is a proof that P is true, which is a contradiction. Therefore it cannot be determined within the system whether P is true.

Only a problem for 20th century megalomaniacs who expect there to be systems in which everything true can be proved (an aspiration people once had for axiomatizations of arithmetic). Once you have suitably downgraded your aspirations, it just means that for any axiomatic system of sufficient richness (basically enough to construct the ‘I can’t be proved’ sentence) there are true things that can’t be proved.

> **···**
>
> * * *
> 
> **From:** Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU](mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU)] **On Behalf Of** Gavin Ritz  
> **Sent:** Monday, 7 November 2011 3:48 PM  
> **To:**  
> CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> **Subject:** Language and Perceptual Controlled Variables
> 
> (Gavin Ritz 2011.07.11.17.26NZT)
> 
> In some discussion with Bill he says that language is a perceptual controlled variable. I think I understand this. (Can’t be sure I do).
> 
> If this is the case, language is connected to theory and mathematics via logic. Language is made up of three types of logic, Imperatives, Declaratives and Interrogatives. If language is made up of logic then logic is also a controlled variable and so then by implication is mathematics. Basically all our knowledge then by implication is a controlled variable.
> 
> Godel then points out that the following statement is a part of the system: a statement P which states “there is no proof of P”. If P is true, there is no proof of it. If P is false, there is a proof that P is true, which is a contradiction. Therefore it cannot be determined within the system whether P is true.
> 
> Oh well, just to confuse the heck out of myself.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Gavin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 6:49am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/language-and-perceptual-controlled-variables/6188/3 "2011-11-07T06:49:56Z")

</div>

(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.11.7.37NZT, eastern Godzone time)

help Avery help.

How did I get here?

I have just been told “it’s  
all I need to know and all there is to know”

It’s only a controlled variable which  
I have fabricated, to match some reference which I too have fabricated.

It’s all just a collective  
fabrication. But I seem happy in it, or am I.

Kind regards

Gavin

(Avery Andrews 2011.7.11 17.19 Eastern  
Oz DST)

> a  
> statement P which states “there is no proof of P”. If P is true,  
> there is no proof of it. If P is false, there is a proof that P is true,  
> which is a contradiction. Therefore it cannot be determined within the  
> system whether P is true.

Only a  
problem for 20th century megalomaniacs who expect there to be systems in which  
everything true can be proved (an aspiration people once had for  
axiomatizations of arithmetic). Once you have suitably downgraded your  
aspirations, it just means that for any axiomatic system of sufficient richness  
(basically enough to construct the ‘I can’t be proved’ sentence) there are true  
things that can’t be proved.

(Gavin  
Ritz 2011.07.11.17.26NZT)

In some  
discussion with Bill he says that language is a perceptual controlled variable. I think  
I understand this. (Can’t be sure I do).

If this  
is the case, language is connected to theory and mathematics via logic.  
Language is made up of three types of logic, Imperatives, Declaratives and  
Interrogatives. If language is made up of logic then logic is also a  
controlled variable and so then by implication is mathematics. Basically all  
our knowledge then by implication is a controlled variable.

Godel  
then points out that the following statement is a part of the system: a  
statement P which states “there is no proof of P”. If P is true,  
there is no proof of it. If P is false, there is a proof that P is true, which  
is a contradiction. Therefore it cannot be determined within the system whether  
P is true.

Oh well,  
just to confuse the heck out of myself.

Regards

Gavin