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 11:52:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4kdcc$2218$18@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v4kbc0$2218$16@i2pn2.org> <v4kcn5$3h3iu$3@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 15:52:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="67624"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4kcn5$3h3iu$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8906
Lines: 209

On 6/15/24 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 10:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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}?
>>
> 
> Its constituents.

In other words, the definition is circular.

> 
>> and what distingueshes the things derived from {thing}
>>
> Their placement in the inheritance hierarchy.

So, what distinguishes the first thing derived from thing from the 
second? Only what derives from them, in that case, again, your 
definitions are circular.

> 
>> All these need definitions (what are part of truth=making) from 
>> OUTSIDE the system.
>>
> 
> The accurate verbal model of the actual world encoded in
> something like simple type theory.

In other words, you are just ADMITTING, that everything in the model 
gets its "meaning" from EMPRICAL TRUTH as looking at the actual world, 
and derives from meaning from the "poorly defined" natural languages of 
that world.

So, NOTHING in that system has truth-makers in the system, and NOTHING 
is actually "analytically true" as everything fundamentally devolse to 
an empirical truth.

> 
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
> Yes, you are starting to get this.
> Fifteen story office buildings never wag their tail.

But there is not fundamental truth-maker to establish any of this.

> 
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> The verified fact that puppies really do wag their tails
> is the truthmaker for {puppies wag their tails}.

In other words, your whole system is just based on emperical truth, and 
analytical truth doesn't actually exist.

> 
>>>
>>> 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, 
> 
> No you are wrong.
> Provide a counter-example.
> it is always a type hierarchy.

Show me a word that isn't defined from other words, in other words, show 
me a root.

A tree with a root must either be infinite in depth or have cycles.

> 
>> 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.
>>
> 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
> 
> This can be further simplified to types of relations between
> finite strings.

And ultimately needs to rely on things not established by Truth-Makers 
in the system.

> 
>> These words have no "truth-makers"
>>
> Incorrect.

So, what are they?

> 
>>>
>>>> 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}
>>
> {Thing} is the root and is defined by itself constituents types of things.

So, it is either defined based on the ENGLISH sentence, and thus we pull 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========