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

On 6/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 11:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 11:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 10:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:

>
{thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.

>
And what DEFINES {thing}?
>

>
Its constituents.

>
In other words, the definition is circular.
>

>
If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
discussion.

>
But the type hierarchy is not the definitions of the type hierarchy.
>
You can not DEFINE the hierarchy without reference to either circular defintions or terms outside your system.
>

>
Prove that.
>

>
Try to show me one that does.
>

 Yo are making the claim either show a concrete example
of this claim or retract it.

I am claiming that somethng does not exist / can't be done.
I have demonstrated the reasoning.
That something doesn't exist CAN'T be shown "by example", as it says that no such thing can exist.

 

The simple explanation is how do you define one of the root terms. If you try to define it based on what derives from it, you get circular.
>

*IT IS ALWAYS A FREAKING TREE AND TREES NEVER HAVE ANY CYCLES*

But the MEANING of the terms from a cycle or refer to something outside.
I guess you just don't understand what a "meaning" is.
That makes sense, because you are always getting them wrong.

 Animal inherits some of its properties from {living thing}
and specifies additional properties that only apply to
the animal sub-type of living thing.

And where do you get the MEANING of those diferentiators?

 {Thing}--->[super type of]{Physically existing thing}
{Thing}<-----[sub type of]{Physically existing thing}
 

And thus the definition of {Thing} is circular with {Physically existing things}
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 or you end up with the same problem at the leaves, but many more of them) or you define it with refernce to concepts OUTSIDE the hierarchy being built, by an Emperical reference to the real world.