Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite
 string transformations --- Quine
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 14:56:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <vu3ji1$c1to$3@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 21:56:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7a034244d83f09ecbfab02b9bdb773a5";
	logging-data="395192"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+oC0BGVDXIQmylzEmsm6Y7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3KxtpPHiDmXF52n1TpHqRLMdzaY=
In-Reply-To: <28809586532a39a78550d734ce59b143ee8d28a9@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250420-6, 4/20/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 4011

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.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer