Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 19:51:37 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4l9ea$3n5d$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <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> <v4l83h$3m8b0$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 23:51:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="122029"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v4l83h$3m8b0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 10625
Lines: 251

On 6/15/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

HOW?

All you have IN THE SYSTEM that you have shown is a parent-child 
relationship between terms.

If the system is just describing that relationship, is says NOTHING 
about the actual meaning of the words.

I don't think you even know what a definition is or what meaning means.

>>
>>>
>>>> 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?

You don't remember the test score I remembered getting?

You said it was impossible.


Since that is the only IQ number I have mentioned, clearly yours is not 
that high.

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