Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.

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}"
You seem to like wrong questions.

 

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.

 

>

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

 

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 meanings actually mean.

 

YOu just don't seem to understand the nature of needing to know things.
>