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 19:06:45 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4l6q6$3n5d$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <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> <v4kl14$3ircc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4klf7$2219$13@i2pn2.org> <v4kp9p$3jfm0$2@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 23:06:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="122029"; 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: <v4kp9p$3jfm0$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7482
Lines: 170

On 6/15/24 3:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> No, the question is "What is a {thing}"
>>
> 
> Of course everyone can see that these two identical questions
> have NOTHING to do with each other:
> 
> "What is a {thing}?"
> "What is a {thing}?"

So, where do you get the anser?

Note, it is "what is a {thing}?" and NOT "what are the children of {thing}?"


> 
>> You seem to like wrong questions.
>>
> 
> You seems to deny the identity principle.
> 
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Nope, You just don't seem smart enpough to understand the issues.
>>
> 
> That you can't point to any specific gaps in my reasoning proves
> that you only have baseless rhetoric. I think that we established
> that my IQ is higher than yours haven't we? I forget.
> 

I Have.

You don't understand.

An no, your IQ is NOT higher than mine.

>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> And how are the nodes defined? WITHIN THE SYSTEM
>>
> 
> There are nodes that have unique GUIDs.

Having a GUID does not assign meaning to the node, it makes it unique.

> There are types of paths that have unique GUIDs for each path type.
> There are connections between nodes using paths.

Which says we can establish specific paths, but doesn't assign MEANING 
to the node.

> 
> That <is> the essence of the
> Cyc knowledge ontology / simple type hierarchy.

So, it seems, by YOUR description, Cyc knowledge ontology doesn't 
actually know the meaning of anything in its database,

> 
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> That tells us which of several meanings to use, but not what those 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========