Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite
 string transformations --- Quine
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 21:39:19 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4bf0086d97d0f8b2aed2049a30d204eadb7b1c6e@i2pn2.org>
References: <vu343r$20gn$2@dont-email.me>
 <fbe82c2374d539fb658a8f5569af102b713ecd01@i2pn2.org>
 <vu3cb7$95co$2@dont-email.me> <vu5494$1urcb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu6amj$2vn05$4@dont-email.me> <vu7m8j$956h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu8nde$13jl5$4@dont-email.me> <vucthk$17en3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vue3dr$28iho$1@dont-email.me> <vufh49$3j05o$1@dont-email.me>
 <vugtvm$pke9$4@dont-email.me> <vui4gn$201kt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuiula$2lf64$1@dont-email.me>
 <010d8210ceb735806bc64ce008551caa1035f810@i2pn2.org>
 <vuku44$heti$1@dont-email.me> <vultjk$1bf1j$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 01:44:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2185630"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vultjk$1bf1j$8@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8320
Lines: 169

On 4/27/25 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/27/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-04-26 20:52:24 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>
>>> On 4/26/25 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-04-25 21:14:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 3:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-04-24 19:28:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-22 18:33:18 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2025 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-21 20:44:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2025 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-20 17:53:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2025 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/25 tic 1:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No counter-example to the above statement exists for all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation and all human reasoning that can be expressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But can all Human reasoning be actually expressed in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, how do you express the smell of a rose in a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string so you can do reasoning with it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all human reasoning that can be expressed in language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is> the {analytic} side of the analytic/synthetic 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that humanity has totally screwed up since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two Dogmas of Empiricism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Willard Van Orman Quine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couldn't even understand that the term Bachelor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as stipulated to have the semantic meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bachelor(x) ≡ ~Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Human(x)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean that if Quine says something that proves that he 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not know
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that thing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When Quine says that there is no such thing as expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>> of language that are true entirely on their semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning expressed in language Quine is stupidly wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Where did Quine say that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When he disagrees that analytic truth can be separately
>>>>>>>>>> demarcated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “...he is best known for his rejection of the
>>>>>>>>   analytic/synthetic distinction.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  I uniquely made his mistake more clear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you didn't. You only made a more clear mistake but about 
>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All expressions of language that can be proven true entirely
>>>>>>>> on the basis of basic facts also expressed in language <are>
>>>>>>>> the analytic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He disagrees that there are any expressions that are
>>>>>>>>>> proven completely true entirely on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where does he say that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “...he is best known for his rejection of the
>>>>>>>> analytic/synthetic distinction.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That page refers to many Quine's works, none of which has the title
>>>>>>> "The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently you don't kone where or evene whther Quine said what you
>>>>>>> claim he said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently you prefer to remain ignorant.
>>>>>> It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
>>>>>> rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
>>>>>> https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Be specific:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Which sentence of that opus contains the mistake you ment
>>>>>   when you said "I uniquely made his mistake more clear" ?
>>>>> - Which sentence of that opus expresses a disagreement that there are
>>>>>   any expressions that are proven completely true entirely on the 
>>>>> basis
>>>>>   of their meaning ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That he disagrees that the analytic synthetic distinction
>>>> distinction exists. His key mistake is failing to understand
>>>> the details of how bachelor(x) gets its semantic meanings.
>>>
>>> And how does it get its meaning that excludes the other option he 
>>> points out for it?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This leads him to failing to understand how words generally get
>>>> their meaning. This leads him to fail to understand which
>>>> expressions are true entirely based on their meaning. This leads
>>>> him to reject the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic distinction.
>>>
>>> But he is right, as true Natural Language DOES have the pointed out 
>>> ambiquity.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed in language
>>>> is an axiomatic system beginning with a finite list of basic facts.
>>>> From this list the rest of general knowledge that can be expressed
>>>> in language is derived through semantic logical entailment.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try to do it.
>>>
>>> The problem is you are STARTING with the imprecision of Natual 
>>> Language, and are stuck with it.
>>
>> The solution is simple: create a new language and don't use any other.
>> Define every word and don't use any word before you have defined it.
>> State basic facts after you have defined all words to state them but
>> before you infer anything about them. Likwise, state the rules of
>> inference only after you have defined the words needed to state them
>> but before using them in any inference.
>>
> 
> Yes that seems to be exactly what I have been proposing
> for years. The "new" language is Rudolf Carnap Meaning
> Postulates / Montague Grammar extended to cover all
> natural language semantics.
> 
> This is organized into a knowledge ontology type hierarchy.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
> The Cyc project uses GUIDs instead of finite strings to label
> unique sense meanings.
> 

Which means you are giving up the concept that you are dealing with a 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========