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

On 6/15/2024 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 11:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

>
Yo are making the claim either show a concrete example
of this claim or retract it.

>
I am claiming that somethng does not exist / can't be done.
>
I have demonstrated the reasoning.
>
That something doesn't exist CAN'T be shown "by example", as it says that no such thing can exist.
>

>

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.
>

*IT IS ALWAYS A FREAKING TREE AND TREES NEVER HAVE ANY CYCLES*

>
But the MEANING of the terms from a cycle or refer to something outside.
>
I guess you just don't understand what a "meaning" is.
>
That makes sense, because you are always getting them wrong.
>

>
Animal inherits some of its properties from {living thing}
and specifies additional properties that only apply to
the animal sub-type of living thing.

>
And where do you get the MEANING of those diferentiators?
>

>
{Thing}--->[super type of]{Physically existing thing}
{Thing}<-----[sub type of]{Physically existing thing}
>
>

>
And thus the definition of {Thing} is circular with {Physically existing things}
>

>
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.
The question: What are your parent types stops that {thing}
The question: What are your child types always stops at some fixed
recursive depth.
*NO INFINITE LOOP HERE*

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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer