Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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 19:39:50 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 302 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 02:39:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f28c05d249972130f2ddc6107b08476"; logging-data="3903923"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18x+bOkUYDQgq6BrigT+qJG" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:VunyenHOzy8FePlIX7KTiCEeA0U= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 12343 On 6/15/2024 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > 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. > I guess that you can't begin to understand this without deep understanding of knowledge ontologies. >>> >>>> >>>>> 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. > I don't remember. I did meet Mensa's Jerry baker at a Mensa meeting he had an IQ 4.7 standard deviations above the mean. You are not understanding things that every MIT BSCS would know. > > 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========