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: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 18:26:58 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9461c2d3ad29c99c9d2d999cbc447492836ab935@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 22:58:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1465116"; 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: <vu8nde$13jl5$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4316
Lines: 86

On 4/22/25 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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. I uniquely made his mistake more clear.

In other words, he didn't use the words you "quoted", but this is just 
another of your normal misinterpreation of someone smarter than you.

> 
> He disagrees that there are any expressions that are
> proven completely true entirely on the basis of their
> meaning.

No, he says there are statements that are not provable true on the basis 
of their words.

He doesn't deny that SOME statements can be proven true, only that a 
system that is based on natural language can not use that as a sole 
basis of operation.

You just don't understand the intracacies of the words being used, which 
is why you keep on twisting the meanings.

> 
> HERE IS HOW HE IS WRONG
> Truth is a necessary consequence of applying the truth
> preserving operation of semantic entailment to the set
> of basic facts (cannot be derived from other facts)
> expressed in language.

Except truth is more than that, and less, since you keep on wanting to 
include natural language in your meanings, and natural language is by 
its nature fussy and has holes in it.

> 
> Truth expressed in language <is> analytic truth.
> Truth expressed by physical sensations <is> empirical truth.
> 

And what about Truth expressed in language that needs idea from physical 
sensations to fully understand?

Or context?

The problem is "language" (as in Natural Language) isn't well enough 
defined to fully specify truth.