Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!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: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 07:20:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a19aa28ebf3244903ddc685aa319c2b893250396@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>
 <9461c2d3ad29c99c9d2d999cbc447492836ab935@i2pn2.org>
 <vu9nuf$2624i$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 11:36:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1534108"; 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: <vu9nuf$2624i$1@dont-email.me>

On 4/22/25 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/22/2025 5:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> We aren't talking about that set. We are talking about statements
> that are provable on the basis of the meaning of their words.
> More technically expressions of language have semantic connections
> to their meaning that prove them true.
> 
>> 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,
> 
> Truth that can be expressed in language is <exactly>
> Truth that can be expressed in language.

But not all Truth is expressable in language, and thus you aren't 
talking about the same thing.

> 
>> 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?
>>
> 
> The concepts of physical sensations are fully elaborated verbally.

Ok, then what is the smell of a rose.

Or the color red.

EXACT elaborations please.

> 
>> Or context?
>>
> 
> Situation context can be encoded verbally.

But often isn't, and that is the problem with trying to use natural 
language as your base.

> 
>> The problem is "language" (as in Natural Language) isn't well enough 
>> defined to fully specify truth.
> 
> Montague Grammar shows the way
> 

Nope, it does some of it, providing a standardized way of trying to 
interprete a natural language, but it doesn't fully succeed.

The statementes correctly processed by the Montague Grammer are only a 
sub-set of the full domain of Natural Langague.

In part because Natuaral Language is not restricted to expressing 
statements with precise meaning, and thus any attempt to claim a precise 
meaning for the statement must be incorrect, or at least incomplete 
(which is incorrect if it claims to be THE MEANING)