Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge

On 06/07/2026 16:51, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2026 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 04/07/2026 16:29, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2026 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 03/07/2026 19:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:45, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
>>>>>>> Cats are animals, if you disagree then you are necessarily 
>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may use "cats are animals" as a part of the defintion of "cat"
>>>>>> or of the definition of "animal" but not both. However, above you
>>>>>> have done neither, so you haven't excluded the possibility that
>>>>>> "cats are animals" is a statement about the real world.
>>>>>
>>>>> cats ⊂ animals
>>>>> animals ⊃ cats
>>>>> They prove each other, thus only one of them is
>>>>> an atomic fact. Atomic facts are facts that cannot
>>>>> be derived from other facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my actual system cats would inherit from animals
>>>>> in the knowledge ontology / simple type hierarchy.
>>>>
>>>> In that case the sentence "cats are animals" does not tell anyting
>>>> about the real world.
>>>
>>> It tells us exactly one thing.
>>
>> Which thing? If the meanings of the words are already known it does
>> not tell anything that is not obvious from those meanings.
> 
> "cats" ⊂ "animals"
> "animals" ⊃ "cats"
> Is to be construed as the first time that anyone
> has every seen those finite strings.
> 
> We are defining the English meaning of words
> to a computer program that starts as a completely
> blank slate.
> 
> The end result of defining every "atomic fact"
> of empirical general knowledge is that the computer
> has complete general knowledge of the world.
The computer does not know that there is a real world.
It just does wbat it is made to do.

-- 
Mikko