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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 15. Jun 2024, 17:11:33
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v4kefm$3h3iu$5@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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.

>
and what distingueshes the things derived from {thing}
>
Their placement in the inheritance hierarchy.
 So, what distinguishes the first thing derived from thing from the second? Only what derives from them, in that case, again, your definitions are circular.
 
If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
discussion.

>
All these need definitions (what are part of truth=making) from OUTSIDE the system.
>
>
The accurate verbal model of the actual world encoded in
something like simple type theory.
 In other words, you are just ADMITTING, that everything in the model gets its "meaning" from EMPRICAL TRUTH as looking at the actual world, and derives from meaning from the "poorly defined" natural languages of that world.
 
Not at all.

So, NOTHING in that system has truth-makers in the system, and NOTHING is actually "analytically true" as everything fundamentally devolse to an empirical truth.
 
An accurate verbal model of the actual world does specify
all of the knowledge that can be expressed using language.

>
>
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?
>
>
What makes puppies not a type of fifteen story office building?
>
Because we have defined the terms that way.
>
Yes, you are starting to get this.
Fifteen story office buildings never wag their tail.
 But there is not fundamental truth-maker to establish any of this.
 
It is all semantic interconnections specified as something like
a type hierarchy.

>
>
The correct verbal model of the actual world encodes relations
between types of things as stipulated relations between finite
strings.
>
And stipulations don't have truth makers in the system.
>
The verified fact that puppies really do wag their tails
is the truthmaker for {puppies wag their tails}.
 In other words, your whole system is just based on emperical truth, and analytical truth doesn't actually exist.
 
Right there really is no such thing as words thus you
never really said that.

>
>
That we have many human languages that encode the same relations
between types of things in the world and each one does it using
different finite strings proves the stipulated aspect of this.
>
And Human Languages have circular definitions for words,
>
No you are wrong.
Provide a counter-example.
it is always a type hierarchy.
 Show me a word that isn't defined from other words, in other words, show me a root.
 A tree with a root must either be infinite in depth or have cycles.
 
No and you cannot show otherwise.
Willard Van Orman Quine got totally confused by this and got
most everyone else to follow his inept reasoning.
He had no idea how the definition of bachelor(x) and ~Married(x)
could be defined in a non-circular way.
(a) first define human
(b) next defined married
(c) next define bachelor as ~married.

>
thus you can not trace them to a "root". We need to start with a set of first concepts that we agree OUTSIDE OF LANGUAGE what they mean, and express these definitions as loops within the language.
>
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
>
This can be further simplified to types of relations between
finite strings.
 And ultimately needs to rely on things not established by Truth-Makers in the system.
 
The definitions of terms specified as relations between other terms
are the truthmakers for these terms.

>
These words have no "truth-makers"
>
Incorrect.
 So, what are they?
 
Semantic gibberish just like "this sentence is not true".

>
>
How can you write a "defintion" for the first term of your system?
>
>
It is the same sort of knowledge tree that the Cyc project uses
to encode an accurate verbal model of the actual world.
>
and, as I asked, how do they actually DEFINE {thing} or diferentiate between the sub-concepts off of {thing}
>
{Thing} is the root and is defined by itself constituents types of things.
 So, it is either defined based on the ENGLISH sentence, and thus we pull enough of English into the system to define it, and get into the cycles of English, or
 
THERE ARE NO CYCLES IN A TYPE HIERARCHY.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 Jun 24 * Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---373olcott
10 Jun 24 +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---10joes
10 Jun 24 i+* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---4Mikko
10 Jun 24 ii`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---3olcott
11 Jun 24 ii `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---2Mikko
11 Jun 24 ii  `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1olcott
10 Jun 24 i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---5olcott
10 Jun 24 i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---4joes
10 Jun 24 i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---3olcott
10 Jun 24 i   `* Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS ---2joes
10 Jun 24 i    `- Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS ---1olcott
10 Jun 24 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---362Richard Damon
11 Jun 24  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error361olcott
11 Jun 24   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error360Richard Damon
11 Jun 24    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error359olcott
11 Jun 24     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error358Richard Damon
11 Jun 24      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten357olcott
12 Jun 24       +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten355Richard Damon
12 Jun 24       i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten354olcott
12 Jun 24       i +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten302Python
12 Jun 24       i i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten301olcott
12 Jun 24       i i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten300Richard Damon
12 Jun 24       i i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten299olcott
12 Jun 24       i i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten298Richard Damon
12 Jun 24       i i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules297olcott
13 Jun 24       i i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules296Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules295olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules288Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules287olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules285Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules284olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules283Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules282olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules281Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules280olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules274Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules273olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules272Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules271olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules270Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules269olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i     +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules1joes
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules267Richard Damon
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules236olcott
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules235Richard Damon
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i `* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)234olcott
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)231Richard Damon
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)230olcott
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)229Richard Damon
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)228olcott
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)169joes
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)168olcott
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i +- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)166joes
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i  +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)2olcott
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i  i`- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)163Mikko
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)162olcott
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i    +- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)1Richard Damon
16 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)160Mikko
16 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)159olcott
17 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i      `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)158Mikko
17 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i       `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)157olcott
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i        `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)156Mikko
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i         `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)155olcott
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i          `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)154Mikko
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i           `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)153olcott
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i            `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)152Mikko
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i             `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)151olcott
19 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i              `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)150Mikko
19 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i               `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)149olcott
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)148Mikko
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                 `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)147olcott
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)146Mikko
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)145olcott
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)5joes
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)4olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)3Fred. Zwarts
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)2olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i   `- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)1Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)56Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)55olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)54Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply53olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply52Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply51olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply50Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply47olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply46Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply45olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply44Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply43olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply42Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply41olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i      `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply40Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i       `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply39olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i        `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply38Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i         `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply37olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i          `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply36Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i           `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply35olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i            `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply34Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply2olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)83Mikko
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)58Richard Damon
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)2joes
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      +* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies12olcott
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      `* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES18olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules5joes
13 Jun 24       i i       i `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules1joes
13 Jun 24       i i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules6joes
12 Jun 24       i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten51Richard Damon
12 Jun 24       `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Fred. Zwarts

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal