Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!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 13:03:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <v4kl14$3ircc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@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> <v4kjod$2218$22@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 20:03:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65be3053bb2d9b452c13d5ddc3153d90";
	logging-data="3763596"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19VDM88xUgkb0Cfl/lHkz6X"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Epq2JII5TepZFv8hCleEBWmHOSo=
In-Reply-To: <v4kjod$2218$22@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5634

On 6/15/2024 12:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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:
>>>> 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 is a {thing} moves downward to its child types
to a finite recursive depth.

>> 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.
> 

When you don't have a clue you resort to rhetoric entirely bereft
of any supporting reasoning because this is very convincing to
clueless wonders and utterly hollow to those that have a clue.

>>
>>> 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.
> 

There are nodes and types of relations between nodes everything
else is explicitly defined.

> 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.
> 
> 

The Cyc project does just that with its GUIDs and it works
just fine.

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

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