Path: ...!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 21:40:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <70be9645c6d3c02b042202a673c2fad639044ee6@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$1@dont-email.me> <vuks6c$ferh$1@dont-email.me>
 <vult4b$1bf1j$7@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
In-Reply-To: <vult4b$1bf1j$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6540
Lines: 134

On 4/27/25 2:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/27/2025 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-04-26 15:38:18 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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 you don't answer above question is sufficient to determine that
>> you are trying a straw man deception.
>>
> 
>    Quine argues that all attempts to define and
>    understand analyticity are circular. Therefore,
>    the notion of analyticity should be rejected
>    https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
> 
> I am not going to dig into the weeds and see
> where Quine says that, it is sufficient to know
> that he says that.
> 

So, I guess you think claims don't need to be proven, which actually 
mean you are admitting that you haven't actually proven any thing you 
have claims.

Sorry, you just torpedoed your claims.