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

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.
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.
Otherwise, to get something to define it with, you need to go out of system.
The problem you are running into is that normally, we just define a system based on the inital facts based on out of system definitions and go on, and sort of forget that dependency.
But then if you want to try to claim that EVERYTHING in the system has a truth-maker in the system, you run into the problem that those terms do not.
The "primative truth-makers" of the system just are truth-makers, but do not HAVE truth-makers of their own.