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: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 18:56:54 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5d154942c6daa8d26b8ae0bef3060ab4f1aa7f1a@i2pn2.org>
References: <vu343r$20gn$2@dont-email.me>
 <fbe82c2374d539fb658a8f5569af102b713ecd01@i2pn2.org>
 <vu3cb7$95co$2@dont-email.me>
 <57fb4080f3b2783cb49a1aacdb43f02343fe9038@i2pn2.org>
 <vu3hmh$c1to$1@dont-email.me>
 <28809586532a39a78550d734ce59b143ee8d28a9@i2pn2.org>
 <vu3ji1$c1to$3@dont-email.me>
 <29dc7fbf06d3cba709a26daa5c5f0898c409989c@i2pn2.org>
 <vu3s23$nqp4$3@dont-email.me> <vu55rt$20d62$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu6d0j$2vn05$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 23:09:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1333713"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vu6d0j$2vn05$7@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5035
Lines: 88

On 4/21/25 5:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/21/2025 5:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-04-20 22:21:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2025 3:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/25 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/2025 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/20/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/20/2025 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/20/25 1:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it isn't, and that is YOUR screw up. Part of the problem is 
>>>>>>>> that the phrase "True by the meaning of the words alone", 
>>>>>>>> doesn't actually have meaning in a Natural Language context, as 
>>>>>>>> words have vaired, imprecise, and even spectrums of meaning, 
>>>>>>>> perhaps even multiple meanings at once. (This is even a form of 
>>>>>>>> word play used to convey special meanings).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, the point he was making was that this is NOT the only 
>>>>>>>> possible meaning of Bachelor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try reading his paper before you stupidly assume what he says.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quine was (on this issue) stupidly confused the whole rest of
>>>>>>> world on the analytic/synthetic distinction so most everyone
>>>>>>> totally lost track of expressions of language that are proven
>>>>>>> true entirely on the basis of their meaning expressed in language.
>>>>>>> AKA analytic(Olcott 2024)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like his statement:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it is not quite true that the synonyms 'bachelor' and 
>>>>>> 'unmarried man' are everywhere interchangeable salva veritate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not the trivial minutiae such as that. Glancing
>>>>> at one sentence of a whole paper does not count as carefully
>>>>> studying the paper. The salient detail about the paper is
>>>>> that Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
>>>>
>>>> But it is enough to show that the simple definition does not work.
>>>
>>> Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
>>
>> What justification you have for your claim that most everyone believes
>> that analytic truth does not exist?
>>
> 
> Speaking with two dozen people about this.
> 
>> What justification you have for your claim that most of those who
>> believe that analytic truth does not exist got that belief from Quine?
>>
> 
> Speaking with two dozen people about this.
> 

So "Two Dozen" is everyone?

You don't seem to know the meaning of the words you use.