Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
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 10:46:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4k9gi$2219$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4djhf$1tsdf$6@dont-email.me>
 <v4dk7b$3qbnc$8@i2pn2.org> <v4dl3b$225kb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4dn5u$3qbnd$8@i2pn2.org> <v4dop4$22o4a$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4dq07$3qbnc$12@i2pn2.org> <v4dqq0$2353n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4el9m$3rsd6$3@i2pn2.org> <v4f3ec$2akmh$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4g65a$3tn6q$1@i2pn2.org> <v4g6vr$2ic0g$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4gc0b$3tn6r$6@i2pn2.org> <v4gcjc$2msea$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4geab$3tn6r$8@i2pn2.org> <v4gg0s$2nim8$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4ha63$3v16r$2@i2pn2.org> <v4hfq9$2sdqr$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4ijlc$kqh$1@i2pn2.org> <v4injg$348ha$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4iraj$kqh$4@i2pn2.org> <v4isva$392jh$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4itis$kqh$7@i2pn2.org> <v4iutm$39bc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4ivig$kqh$9@i2pn2.org> <v4ivti$39gh7$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4j28d$kqh$10@i2pn2.org> <v4j2ck$39ub0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4j2u4$kqh$13@i2pn2.org> <v4j3bd$3a0ot$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4js1c$2218$2@i2pn2.org> <v4k5aq$3fnqu$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4k69h$2218$3@i2pn2.org> <v4k84g$3gc4t$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 14:46:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="67625"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v4k84g$3gc4t$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4739
Lines: 79

On 6/15/24 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 8:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/14/24 11:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if you consider it a thing, that means that your logic system 
>>>>>> FAILS by the same problem that killed Naive Set Theory, and in 
>>>>>> fact, can shpw that ANYTHING is true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> bzzzTT WRONG ANSWER. Prove there is a centillion ton rainbow 
>>>>> colored elephant in my living room right now.
>>>>
>>>> Since you just defined that your sources of Truth Makers include 
>>>> EVERY universe that possible exists, then, BY DEFINITION, there 
>>>> exists a universe where that is true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> iff (if and only if) expression of language X is true then some
>>> physically existing or conception thing makes X true.
>>
>> Which forces you into cycles, as either you have cycles, or you have a 
>> set of "first truths" that are just true of themselves with nothing to 
>> make them true.
>>
>> A directed graph (from truth sources to true statements) either has 
>> cycles or roots, or is just infinite in size.
>>
> 
> No you are wrong about this. The first thing that I discovered
> about this at least twenty years ago is that it is always an
> acyclic graph.

Which means there is always a set of root nodes that do not have a 
truth-maker coming into them.

> 
> When you try to come up with a concrete counter-example I will
> point out your specific mistake.

But I have conceptually.

Show me a root concept, that has a truth-maker but doesn't depend on 
anything else. If you use words to describe it, how do those words have 
meaning without being defined by other words.

There is a fundamental problem of first principles that need to stand on 
their own without support from anything in the system.

> 
> The definition of the meaning of a term is the truthmaker
> for this term. The terms that this definition is composed
> of have their own definitions. This is recursively quite
> deep yet zero actual cycles.

And what makes that definition true?

How can you write a "defintion" for the first term of your system?

You ALWAYS need to reference something outside your system, and when you 
then include that source, you need to find the root of THAT system, and 
your problem continues.

> 
>>>
>>> There are some published papers by "leading experts" in the
>>> field that make that same stupid mistake.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But you clearly don't understand the problem with your statement, 
>> where you are making a similar stupid mistake.
>>
> 
> I have given this thirty years.
> You have given this a few minutes.
>