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

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.

 

>

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?

>

>

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
>

>
There are nodes that have unique GUIDs.

 Having a GUID does not assign meaning to the node, it makes it unique.
 

The meaning is specified by the connection to other
nodes. If we make an ISO standard dictionary of English
with standardized subscripts for sense meanings then we
get the gist of the idea of how the sense meanings of
words are defined in terms of the sense meanings of other
words.

There are types of paths that have unique GUIDs for each path type.
There are connections between nodes using paths.

 Which says we can establish specific paths, but doesn't assign MEANING to the node.
 

When we simply take the above ISO standard dictionary and
swap the finite string "word" + ISO standard subscript for
GUIDs all of the original semantic meaning remains intact.

>
That <is> the essence of the
Cyc knowledge ontology / simple type hierarchy.

 So, it seems, by YOUR description, Cyc knowledge ontology doesn't actually know the meaning of anything in its database,
 

>

>

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.
>

>
Each unique sense meaning has its own GUID.
>

 Which doesn't mean it has a meaning. It has a spot for a unique meaning.
 We can build definitions of words in the tree from other words, but those definitions will form a cycle.

If there is a cycle there then the ISO standard dictionary
would also have a cycle.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer