Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon 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: References: 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: 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 ==========