Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite string transformations --- Quine
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:04:01 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <vu7m21$8vbb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vu343r$20gn$2@dont-email.me> <fbe82c2374d539fb658a8f5569af102b713ecd01@i2pn2.org> <vu3cb7$95co$2@dont-email.me> <57fb4080f3b2783cb49a1aacdb43f02343fe9038@i2pn2.org> <vu3hmh$c1to$1@dont-email.me> <28809586532a39a78550d734ce59b143ee8d28a9@i2pn2.org> <vu3ji1$c1to$3@dont-email.me> <vu55kd$205vj$1@dont-email.me> <vu6bgj$2vn05$6@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 11:04:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="77e99febd2ea8fbd06e9bc59456aaf8d";
	logging-data="294251"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+mncMp3P7PZ2zvXeIQ/qN9"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SJA2yLj4EFPht/6K64P98Ys1gN8=
Bytes: 5044

On 2025-04-21 20:57:55 +0000, olcott said:

> On 4/21/2025 5:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-04-20 19:56:48 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> He did not claim that. He said that there are truths that are neither
>> fully analytic nor fully synthetic so the often assumed boundary between
>> the two does not exist.
> 
> The body of human knowledge that is proven true entirely
> on the basis of the connection from an expression of
> language to its meaning also expressed in language is the
> kind of analytic that I have always been referring to.

Before you can connect with an expression of a language one expression
to its meanings you must have a connection of at least one expresson
to its meaning.

> I just found the right words this year. The basic facts
> (cannot be derived from other facts) are the axioms of
> this system. The only rule-of-inference is semantic
> logical entailment.

You can't express the meaning of "semantic logical entailment" so that
it can be used as an inference rule. In particular, the wor "semantic"
prevents its use in a formal system.

-- 
Mikko