Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vue3dr$28iho$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 14:28:57 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 119 Message-ID: <vue3dr$28iho$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> <vucthk$17en3$1@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 21:29:00 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8278b879b49e14b6990f113f300251ec"; logging-data="2378296"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18F1gvpTN2gVYyySttvI3bf" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qa1fUEOTDTOd9YhuR7TXRH4B/ps= In-Reply-To: <vucthk$17en3$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250424-12, 4/24/2025), Outbound message Bytes: 5338 On 4/24/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote: > 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? > Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction “...he is best known for his rejection of the analytic/synthetic distinction.” https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/ >> I uniquely made his mistake more clear. > > No, you didn't. You only made a more clear mistake but about another > topic. > All expressions of language that can be proven true entirely on the basis of basic facts also expressed in language <are> the analytic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction. >> He disagrees that there are any expressions that are >> proven completely true entirely on the basis of their >> meaning. > > Where does he say that? > Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction “...he is best known for his rejection of the analytic/synthetic distinction.” https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/ >> 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? > That is what he totally gets wrong when he rejects the analytic/synthetic distinction. >> 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? > The set of basic (indivisible) facts are the axioms for the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language. >> Truth expressed by physical sensations <is> empirical truth. > > I don't think a set of physical sensations can express a truth. > "I saw a cat walk across my living room floor." Requires seeing a cat. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer