Path: 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: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 12:08:28 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <vuks6c$ferh$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> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 11:08:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e20b51155d493a56da5db83ddb0aac41";
	logging-data="506737"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+RaxEsBrUuj52euxzLEZDX"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vq6WahXmoz+40Z/AwKWhw0aFTGE=

On 2025-04-26 15:38:18 +0000, olcott said:

> On 4/26/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-04-25 21:14:30 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 4/25/2025 3:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-04-24 19:28:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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/
>>>> 
>>>> That page refers to many Quine's works, none of which has the title
>>>> "The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction".
>>>> 
>>>> Apparently you don't kone where or evene whther Quine said what you
>>>> claim he said.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Apparently you prefer to remain ignorant.
>>> It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
>>> rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:
>>> 
>>> Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
>>> https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
>> 
>> Be specific:
>> 
>> - Which sentence of that opus contains the mistake you ment
>>  when you said "I uniquely made his mistake more clear" ?
>> - Which sentence of that opus expresses a disagreement that there are
>>  any expressions that are proven completely true entirely on the basis
>>  of their meaning ?

That you don't answer above question is sufficient to determine that
you are trying a straw man deception.

> That he disagrees that the analytic synthetic distinction
> distinction exists. His key mistake is failing to understand
> the details of how bachelor(x) gets its semantic meanings.
> 
> This leads him to failing to understand how words generally get
> their meaning. This leads him to fail to understand which
> expressions are true entirely based on their meaning. This leads
> him to reject the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic distinction.
> 
> The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed in language
> is an axiomatic system beginning with a finite list of basic facts.
>  From this list the rest of general knowledge that can be expressed
> in language is derived through semantic logical entailment.

-- 
Mikko