Path: ...!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 11:18:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4kbc0$2218$16@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v4k9gi$2219$2@i2pn2.org> <v4kafp$3gc4t$7@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 15:18:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="67624"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v4kafp$3gc4t$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6699
Lines: 130

On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 9:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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 we do this that way that the Cyc project does it {thing} is
> the ultimate root node. {thing} is divided up into types of things.
> 
> 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
> 
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> 
> {thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.

And what DEFINES {thing}?

and what distingueshes the things derived from {thing}

All these need definitions (what are part of truth=making) from OUTSIDE 
the system.

> 
>> 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?
>>
> 
> What makes puppies not a type of fifteen story office building?

Because we have defined the terms that way.

> 
> The correct verbal model of the actual world encodes relations
> between types of things as stipulated relations between finite
> strings.

And stipulations don't have truth makers in the system.

> 
> That we have many human languages that encode the same relations
> between types of things in the world and each one does it using
> different finite strings proves the stipulated aspect of this.

And Human Languages have circular definitions for words, thus you can 
not trace them to a "root". We need to start with a set of first 
concepts that we agree OUTSIDE OF LANGUAGE what they mean, and express 
these definitions as loops within the language.

These words have no "truth-makers"

> 
>> How can you write a "defintion" for the first term of your system?
>>
> 
> It is the same sort of knowledge tree that the Cyc project uses
> to encode an accurate verbal model of the actual world.

and, as I asked, how do they actually DEFINE {thing} or diferentiate 
between the sub-concepts off of {thing}

Only by using information from OUTSIDE the 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.
>>
> 
> Not really, even the root of the knowledge tree {thing}
> is defined in terms of its constituents.
> 
> 

So, if those constituents are in the system, we have a circular 
definition, and if outside, it isn't a self-sufficient system.