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

On 6/15/24 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

 >>

>
EVERYTHING is meaningless until you start to define some of them to conenct them to actual ideas and things.
>

>
{cat} <is a> {animal} is more than zero meaning
for the otherwise totally meaning less finite
strings.
>

>
But, without the link from {cat} to the English word "Cat", it provides us no knowledge about our actual world.
>

 WrongO it provides the single unit of meaning that
{cat} <is a> {animal}

Which, since we don't have {cat} to talk about, being JUST A STRING OF SYMBOLS it gives no knowledge about anything other than the system with all the other meaningless symbols.

 Encode another googol of meaning postulates and we will know
all of the general knowledge about cats and everything else.

No, we have all the general knowledge about {cat}s and {everything else}

 The key basis of ALL of this that most of the experts in the
field are mostly clueless about is Truthmaker Maximalism.
 If there is no physical or conceptual thing that makes expression
X true then X is conclusively proven untrue on this basis.
 

And there can not be any such thing if the strings are just meaningless strings. So, we need definitional links to connect those strings to something that provides meaning to them.
And in the system, without such links to establish the truth of the base principles in the system, you need to just "assume" some are true without a truth maker (and with the links, their truthmakers are out of system).