Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:03:15 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 105 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 20:03:16 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65be3053bb2d9b452c13d5ddc3153d90"; logging-data="3763596"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19VDM88xUgkb0Cfl/lHkz6X" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Epq2JII5TepZFv8hCleEBWmHOSo= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5634 On 6/15/2024 12:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> It is not circular because *the paths are of different types* >>>> It is only asking a question about one of these path types at >>>> a time thus never actually circular. >>> >>> The DEFINITION of {Thing} depends on {Physically existing thing} >>> The DEFINITION of {Physically existing thing} depends on {Thing} >>> >>> That is a CYCLE >>> >> >> Then every conditional branch always specifies an infinite loop. > > From what? > >> The question: What are your parent types stops that {thing} > > Yes, but the question: "What is a {thing}?" is defined by a cycle if its > only definition is its relationships. > The question: What is a {thing} moves downward to its child types to a finite recursive depth. >> The question: What are your child types always stops at some fixed >> recursive depth. >> >> *NO INFINITE LOOP HERE* > > Because you keep asking the wrong questions, because you close your eyes > to the truth. > When you don't have a clue you resort to rhetoric entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning because this is very convincing to clueless wonders and utterly hollow to those that have a clue. >> >>> To find the meaning of {Thing} we trace it to {Physically existing >>> thing} which then traces to {Thing} >>> >>> Do you not understand what a cycle is? >>> >>>> >>>> The tree traversal can move up the tree or down the tree >>>> until is reaches the node where it stops. >>>> >>>> What are your parent types? >>>> What are your child types? >>> >>> But that doesn't define what a {Thing} actually represents. By all >>> your arguements, {Thing} could be the color "Red" and {Physically >>> existing thig} could be "Fire Engine Red" >>> >>>> >>>>> I guess you just don't understand the concept of meaning. >>>>> >>>>> Makes sense for someone who doesn't understand what truth is. >>>>> >>>>> To DEFINE what a {Thing} is, you either need to define it in terms >>>>> of a collection of all its sub-componets  (which gives you a >>>>> circular definition >>>> >>>> So a dog has a tongue and the tongue is comprised of cells >>>> and the cells are comprised of dog? >>>> >>>> Try and provide a complete concrete example that is not nonsense. >>> >>> But you are talking about RELATIONSHIPS and not DEFINITIONS. >>> >> >> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the >> objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals, >> properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties >> of such relations, etc. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >> >> The above can be simplified to different types of relations >> between types thus fully defining every term. >> > And without definitions for the terms in your tree, the tree means nothing. > There are nodes and types of relations between nodes everything else is explicitly defined. > It could just as easily had all the words replace with non-sense items > like {type-1}, {type-2}, {type-3}, ... which means it tells you nothing > about what you want to know. > > The Cyc project does just that with its GUIDs and it works just fine. > YOu just don't seem to understand the nature of needing to know things. > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer