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

On 6/15/24 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 8:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/14/24 11:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/14/2024 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
But if you consider it a thing, that means that your logic system FAILS by the same problem that killed Naive Set Theory, and in fact, can shpw that ANYTHING is true.
>

>
bzzzTT WRONG ANSWER. Prove there is a centillion ton rainbow colored elephant in my living room right now.

>
Since you just defined that your sources of Truth Makers include EVERY universe that possible exists, then, BY DEFINITION, there exists a universe where that is true.
>

>
iff (if and only if) expression of language X is true then some
physically existing or conception thing makes X true.

>
Which forces you into cycles, as either you have cycles, or you have a set of "first truths" that are just true of themselves with nothing to make them true.
>
A directed graph (from truth sources to true statements) either has cycles or roots, or is just infinite in size.
>

 No you are wrong about this. The first thing that I discovered
about this at least twenty years ago is that it is always an
acyclic graph.

Which means there is always a set of root nodes that do not have a truth-maker coming into them.

 When you try to come up with a concrete counter-example I will
point out your specific mistake.

But I have conceptually.
Show me a root concept, that has a truth-maker but doesn't depend on anything else. If you use words to describe it, how do those words have meaning without being defined by other words.
There is a fundamental problem of first principles that need to stand on their own without support from anything in the system.

 The definition of the meaning of a term is the truthmaker
for this term. The terms that this definition is composed
of have their own definitions. This is recursively quite
deep yet zero actual cycles.

And what makes that definition true?
How can you write a "defintion" for the first term of your system?
You ALWAYS need to reference something outside your system, and when you then include that source, you need to find the root of THAT system, and your problem continues.

 

>
There are some published papers by "leading experts" in the
field that make that same stupid mistake.
>
>

>
But you clearly don't understand the problem with your statement, where you are making a similar stupid mistake.
>

 I have given this thirty years.
You have given this a few minutes.