On 10/20/2013 12:41 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote: > On 19/10/2013 11:16 PM, fom wrote: >> >> Read your definition. I repeat myself: >> >> >> It has to do with *available* *definitions* which have >> >> been asked for an *not* *given*. >> >> a meta truth depends on a collection of meta truths > > Apparently your "Yes" answer is wrong: you don't seem to understand > my definition of "impossible to know"! (Hint: here I wasn't defining > a meta truth; that's a different definition I had clearly defined > before!) >
Nam turns the corner once more to find a slippery slope down into the mud.
Then let us step back to the defintion of metatruth.