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

On 6/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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}
>

 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
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.
Where did ANYTHING actually get MEANING for what it is.
It seems your whole logic is just make-beleive.

 

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.