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 12:24:48 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4kf8g$2219$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v4kdcc$2218$18@i2pn2.org> <v4kefm$3h3iu$5@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 16:24:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="67625"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v4kefm$3h3iu$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9540
Lines: 234

On 6/15/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>> {thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
>>>>
>>>> And what DEFINES {thing}?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its constituents.
>>
>> In other words, the definition is circular.
>>
> 
> If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
> then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
> discussion.

But the type hierarchy is not the definitions of the type hierarchy.

You can not DEFINE the hierarchy without reference to either circular 
defintions or terms outside your system.

> 
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
> 
> If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
> then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
> discussion.


And without definitions for the "types", it is just a meaningless tree 
of undefined terms. But then, that somehow seems normal for you systems, 
you throw out terms you don't understand and see what sticks to the 
wall, which results in a zero-knowledge/truth system.

> 
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
> 
> Not at all.

Sure seems like it.

> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> An accurate verbal model of the actual world does specify
> all of the knowledge that can be expressed using language.

And the word definitions of natural language are circular.

> 
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
> 
> It is all semantic interconnections specified as something like
> a type hierarchy.

Excpet that definitions become circular or reference out of system 
definitions.

> 
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
> 
> Right there really is no such thing as words thus you
> never really said that.

But you seem to be using the Natural Language meaning of the words, 
which are just "Emperical" as they are based on truths that are observed 
and not analytically defined. The "Natural" part of Natural Language 
means that it is as found in "Nature", i.e. the real world. Ultimately, 
the Natural Language meaning of the word "Cat" relies on the observation 
and sense data of how that word is used in reality. We might then 
formalize it some, but the core meanings of Natural Language are learned 
experimentally, not logically.

> 
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
> 
> No and you cannot show otherwise.
> Willard Van Orman Quine got totally confused by this and got
> most everyone else to follow his inept reasoning.

Try to show one that doesn't

> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========