Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: All computation & human reasoning encoded as finite string
 transformations --- Quine
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 16:07:38 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 188
Message-ID: <vujhur$35hcg$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vu343r$20gn$2@dont-email.me> <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> <vue3dr$28iho$1@dont-email.me>
 <vufh49$3j05o$1@dont-email.me> <vugtvm$pke9$4@dont-email.me>
 <vui4gn$201kt$1@dont-email.me> <vuiula$2lf64$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuj075$1kkn$1@news.muc.de> <vuj2rd$2lf64$8@dont-email.me>
 <vuj5a7$1u8v$1@news.muc.de> <vujc61$329gt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vujg8v$19ks$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 23:07:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9742630c956e796e93c0a1f147f3a807";
	logging-data="3327376"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6yFbZGSBtqa2scB0CWOH8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+aGSc1pfPGCxKiVW8Bp8WLbvy24=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250426-4, 4/26/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vujg8v$19ks$1@news.muc.de>

On 4/26/2025 3:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/26/2025 12:31 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2025 11:04 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
> [ .... ]
> 
>>>>> I suspect Quine's statements were much more nuanced than your
>>>>> understanding (or misunderstanding) of them would suggest.  Since you
>>>>> can't cite Quine's original text to back up your assertions, it seems
>>>>> more likely that these assertions are falsehoods.
> 
> 
>>>> Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
>>>> https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
> 
>>>> I am not going to wade through his double talk and weasel
>>>> words any more deeply that his issue with how the term Bachelor(x)
>>>> gets its meaning. He totally screwed that up proving that
>>>> he is clueless about how words get their meaning.
> 
>>> Or, far more likely, you are clueless about what he actually wrote, and
>>> what it means.
> 
>> You can just keyword search the term 98 instances of the
>> term [synonym] and see all of his mistakes.
> 
> I could, but I'm not going to.  I put it to you, again, you have not read
> and understood that paper of Quine's.  It says things you don't like,
> that you can't counter logically, so you just end up cursing.
> 
>>> You haven't provided any evidence for you actually having read the
>>> original.  You're likely just quoting somebody else's opinion of that
>>> original.
> 
>>>> If anyone in the universe says that the analytic/synthetic
>>>> does not exist we can ignore everything that they say and
>>>> provide the details of how analytic truth works:
> 
>>>> *Semantic logical entailment from a finite list of basic facts*
> 
>>> In other words, if anybody disagrees with you, you bad mouth them.
> 
>> Not on this. This material is difficult.
> 
> I don't doubt it.  So why don't you conclude that you might not have
> understood it fully?
> 

Everyone knows that Quine rejected the analytic/synthetic
distinction.

If you don't know this or don't believe this I DON'T CARE.

Everyone knows that analytic truth is expressions of language
that are true entirely on the basis of their meaning.

If you don't know this or don't believe this I DON'T CARE.

When we link a the set of basic facts to the set of expressions
derived from these basic facts by semantic logical entailment
then we get the set of expressions that are proven true on entirely
on the basis of their meaning, hence proving that the
analytic side of the analytic/synthetic distinction exists.

The above is proven true entirely on the basis of the
meaning of its words.

> [ .... ]
> 
>>>>>> The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed in language
>>>>>> is an axiomatic system beginning with a finite list of basic facts.
> 
>>>>> You've never proven that, and it is almost certainly false.
> 
>>>> A valid counter-example is categorically impossible.
> 
>>> OK, take the true statement "Nuremberg is a good place to live.", a
>>> statement expressed in language.  Please state the axioms from which this
>>> can be derived, and show that derivation.
> 
>> I don't think that value judgments can be derived
>> from basic facts thus do not count as knowledge that
>> can be expressed using language.
> 
> OK, so you remove from "the entire body of human knowledge that can be
> expressed in language" everything that _can't_ be derived from your
> axioms.  That's circular and tautological.
> 

Not at all We remove uncertain opinions from knowledge.

> Even if you did this, what you would end up with would be an impoverished
> lifeless mechanical subset of knowledge.  You would have no music or
> arts, no reason to get out of bed, even, no experience, and no human
> relationships.  Amongst other things.
> 

Not all. Knowledge about opinions is knowledge.
Knowledge only includes provable certainties.

> All these things can be expressed in language.  They cannot be derived
> from some set of axioms.
> 

Statements of opinions are anchored in the meaning
of their words. The full meaning of every word is
an aspect of basic facts. When I say the full meaning
I mean that the word: "human" may have a quadrillion
related axioms comprised of basic facts.

>> Keep trying to come up with counter-examples so that
>> I can generalize to prove that counter-examples are
>> categorically impossible.
> 
> If you keep changing the rules every time I give you such a counter
> example, then clearly I can't.
> 

I keep elaborating my words when you find aspects that
are not clear.

> As I said, it's up to you to prove your assertion that the entire body of
> human knowledge can be derived from "basic facts".  You haven't yet given
> even a single example of such a basic fact, never mind some derivation of
> useful human knowledge from it.
> 

I have done this many hundreds of times:
{cats} <are> {animals}

objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944

A simplified overview of a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

>>> I doubt very much you can do this.
> 
>>>>>>    From this list the rest of general knowledge that can be expressed
>>>>>> in language is derived through semantic logical entailment.
> 
>>>>> Apart from the bits which can't be.
> 
>>>> Such bits are categorically impossible for the entire
>>>> body of knowledge that can be expressed in language.
> 
>>> Wrong.  I just gave an example above.  I think it likely that most bits
>>> of knowledge expressible as language will not be derivable from your
>>> axioms, of which you have yet to give a single example.
> 
>> Try again. Value judgements do not count as knowledge
>> because they are not semantically entailed from basic facts.
> 
> You're simply wrong, there.  Knowledge is very much build up from value
> judgments. 

Anything less that certainty is not knowledge.

> There are no such "basic facts", apart from in specialised
> fields such as mathematics.  The universe is simply too rich, too
> colourful, too multifacetted to be reducible to some sterile system of
> "basic facts".
> 

Basic Facts are the atoms of semantic meaning.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========