Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
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 12:33:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 143
Message-ID: <v4kj9m$3iid3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$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> <v4kf8g$2219$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v4kflr$3hugj$2@dont-email.me> <v4kg3f$2218$20@i2pn2.org>
 <v4kgop$3hugj$3@dont-email.me> <v4khir$2219$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v4ki8q$3ib3p$1@dont-email.me> <v4kim5$2219$11@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:33:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65be3053bb2d9b452c13d5ddc3153d90";
	logging-data="3754403"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/NJxcWXjIRdvo8+u3odB4j"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oGK78S/2s36TUV0QsScLBMsgmMo=
In-Reply-To: <v4kim5$2219$11@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6860

On 6/15/2024 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2024 11:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 11:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to show me one that does.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yo are making the claim either show a concrete example
>>>> of this claim or retract it.
>>>
>>> I am claiming that somethng does not exist / can't be done.
>>>
>>> I have demonstrated the reasoning.
>>>
>>> That something doesn't exist CAN'T be shown "by example", as it says 
>>> that no such thing can exist.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The simple explanation is how do you define one of the root terms. 
>>>>> If you try to define it based on what derives from it, you get 
>>>>> circular.
>>>>>
>>>> *IT IS ALWAYS A FREAKING TREE AND TREES NEVER HAVE ANY CYCLES*
>>>
>>> But the MEANING of the terms from a cycle or refer to something outside.
>>>
>>> I guess you just don't understand what a "meaning" is.
>>>
>>> That makes sense, because you are always getting them wrong.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Animal inherits some of its properties from {living thing}
>>>> and specifies additional properties that only apply to
>>>> the animal sub-type of living thing.
>>>
>>> And where do you get the MEANING of those diferentiators?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> {Thing}--->[super type of]{Physically existing thing}
>>>> {Thing}<-----[sub type of]{Physically existing thing}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> And thus the definition of {Thing} is circular with {Physically 
>>> existing things}
>>>
>>
>> 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.
The question: What are your parent types stops that {thing}
The question: What are your child types always stops at some fixed
recursive depth.

*NO INFINITE LOOP HERE*

> 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.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer