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 13:41:33 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4kjod$2218$22@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <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> <v4kj9m$3iid3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 17:41:34 -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: <v4kj9m$3iid3$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7399
Lines: 160

On 6/15/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

 From what?

> The question: What are your parent types stops that {thing}

Yes, but the question: "What is a {thing}?" is defined by a cycle if its 
only definition is its relationships.

> The question: What are your child types always stops at some fixed
> recursive depth.
> 
> *NO INFINITE LOOP HERE*

Because you keep asking the wrong questions, because you close your eyes 
to the truth.

> 
>> 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.
> 
And without definitions for the terms in your tree, the tree means nothing.

It could just as easily had all the words replace with non-sense items 
like {type-1}, {type-2}, {type-3}, ... which means it tells you nothing 
about what you want to know.


YOu just don't seem to understand the nature of needing to know things.