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

On 6/16/24 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

 >>

>
EVERYTHING is meaningless until you start to define some of them to conenct them to actual ideas and things.
>

>
{cat} <is a> {animal} is more than zero meaning
for the otherwise totally meaning less finite
strings.
>

>
But, without the link from {cat} to the English word "Cat", it provides us no knowledge about our actual world.
>

>
WrongO it provides the single unit of meaning that
{cat} <is a> {animal}

>
Which, since we don't have {cat} to talk about, being JUST A STRING OF SYMBOLS it gives no knowledge about anything other than the system with all the other meaningless symbols.
>

 It provides the single piece of knowledge that
{cat} <is a type of> {animal}
 

Which tells me nothing of this world. I can't tell if {cat} represents my cat, or my dog, or my work place, or the color Red.
Without a definition that likes the terms in the ontology to our world, the ontology is worthless for asking about things that matter.

>
Encode another googol of meaning postulates and we will know
all of the general knowledge about cats and everything else.

>
No, we have all the general knowledge about {cat}s and {everything else}
>

 googol = 10^100
googolplex = 10^googol --- 10^10^100
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex
 This knowledge could be encoded as a list individual meaning
postulates. with the subscript of the meaning postulate being
its identifier.
 {cats> <are> {animals}
{animals} <are> {living things}
{living things} <are> {physically existing things}
{physically existing things} <are> {things}
{cats} <have> {four legs}
 Try to make an example with a cycle.

So, what keeps me from thinking that {cat} could represent my Dog?

 

>
The key basis of ALL of this that most of the experts in the
field are mostly clueless about is Truthmaker Maximalism.
>
If there is no physical or conceptual thing that makes expression
X true then X is conclusively proven untrue on this basis.
>

>
And there can not be any such thing if the strings are just meaningless strings. So, we need definitional links to connect those strings to something that provides meaning to them.
>

 We simply hypothesize that all of the knowledge of the world
that can be encoded using language is already encoded using
language.

And nothing in that system means anything about our world, without having the connecting statement between them
We could encrypt all the names of the objects in the system, and the system would be exactly the same.

 

And in the system, without such links to establish the truth of the base principles in the system, you need to just "assume" some are true without a truth maker (and with the links, their truthmakers are out of system).

 We do not merely assume that {cats} <are not>
{fifteen story office buildings} after the terms {cat}
and {office building} are fully encoded in postulates
we can see that they have mutually exclusive properties.
 {cats} <are> {living things}
{office buildings} <are not> {living things}.
 

But what keeps the {cats} (in the system) from being a 15 story office building in our universe?