What can I do in my specific case to show my positive contribution to the site to get my question ban lifted?
I just asked this question several different ways on the SE meta site and the answer that I derived from all of the feedback is that providing good conventional answers that get up votes can unblock my question asking on this site.
The other difficult follow up that is best asked here is how I can "fix" my existing (very unconventional) questions/answers.
To the very best of my current understanding the only thing that was "wrong" about any of my questions / answers was that they are very unconventional. From my perspective it really seems that thinking outside-of-the box in generally regarded as incorrect.
When I spoke much more in depth about this aspect with Philip Klöcking and Conifold the idea that I was being rejected on the basis of outside-the-box thinking was reaffirmed.
The foundationalism you envision has been tried time and again and is, philosophically, a dead horse. Nuff said. – Philip Klöcking
"philosophically, a dead horse" How so? What objective basis do you have for this assertion? – polcott
He responded with many different objections that only applied to the synthetic side of the analytic versus synthetic distinction and I was not able to redirect the conversion back to this analytic perspective.
@Conifold If truth is provability then true and unprovable (thus incompleteness) is necessarily impossible. Also impossible is Tarski Undefinability when we simply define True as provable. polcott
You are mistaken because "true" and "provable" have different meanings in the incompleteness theorem and in intuitionism. – Conifold
This conversion has not been resolved.
So my question is how do I best "fix" my questions and answers so that they are acceptable, yet still retain their thinking-out-side-the-box unconventional perspective? To the best of my current knowledge no one has ever actually pointed out any actual error.
This notion of strong foundationalism makes every element of the body of analytical knowledge a theorem of a formal system comprised of a recursive language with a membership algorithm
Analytical knowledge is merely semantic meanings expressed using language and encoded like this: Successor(Successor(Successor(0))) = 3 where the LHS encodes the semantics of the RHS.
It is self-evident to me that the entire body of analytical truth (including all of mathematics) is essentially theorems in a single formal system expressed as a recursive language with a membership algorithm.
So far all of the objections to this kind of strong foundationalism that I have encountered rejects its application to analytical knowledge entirely on the basis that it does not work on synthetic knowledge. That is like saying that you can't drive a car on the street because you can't drive a car in the ocean. Copyright PL_OLCOTT 2020