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: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 11:42:28 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <vucthk$17en3$1@dont-email.me>
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: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 10:42:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b323bd0b35eb59ebd32e9261de22c1e";
	logging-data="1293027"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/axv+u8390Ti/I2kTATSCi"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EIwlpkIuA2t1VGZ5wKziC707vkU=
Bytes: 3937

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?

>  I uniquely made his mistake more clear.

No, you didn't. You only made a more clear mistake but about another
topic.

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

Where does he say that?

> 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.

Where does he say that 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?

> Truth expressed in language <is> analytic truth.

No, not always. An empirical truth expressed in a language is an
empirical truth. But which is a truth that is inferred from two
premises, one analytic and one empirical?

> Truth expressed by physical sensations <is> empirical truth.

I don't think a set of physical sensations can express a truth.

-- 
Mikko