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 18:28:49 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 205
Message-ID: <v4l83h$3m8b0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4iraj$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> <v4l6q6$3n5d$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 01:28:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f28c05d249972130f2ddc6107b08476";
	logging-data="3875168"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18AIeecqBJM3piidnuqVmjq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wJFEq6CWW31XEcZH9zYsBg13ujw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4l6q6$3n5d$2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8736

On 6/15/2024 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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}?"
> 

The child nodes in a knowledge ontology exhaustively
specify the most subtle nuance of detail about each
and every thing in the set of all general knowledge.

> 
>>
>>> 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 have not.

> You don't understand.
> 
> An no, your IQ is NOT higher than mine.
> 

Do you even remember that conversation?

>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
> 

The meaning is specified by the connection to other
nodes. If we make an ISO standard dictionary of English
with standardized subscripts for sense meanings then we
get the gist of the idea of how the sense meanings of
words are defined in terms of the sense meanings of other
words.

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