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: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 12:41:24 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 150
Message-ID: <vuku44$heti$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> <010d8210ceb735806bc64ce008551caa1035f810@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 11:41:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e20b51155d493a56da5db83ddb0aac41";
	logging-data="572338"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+iwFTSS0awe7UPeysziMZ8"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zS0sHFwGl6R7G/T/hEvMGoDqzuc=
Bytes: 7186

On 2025-04-26 20:52:24 +0000, Richard Damon said:

> On 4/26/25 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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 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.
> 
> And how does it get its meaning that excludes the other option he 
> points out for it?
> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> But he is right, as true Natural Language DOES have the pointed out ambiquity.
> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> Try to do it.
> 
> The problem is you are STARTING with the imprecision of Natual 
> Language, and are stuck with it.

The solution is simple: create a new language and don't use any other.
Define every word and don't use any word before you have defined it.
State basic facts after you have defined all words to state them but
before you infer anything about them. Likwise, state the rules of
inference only after you have defined the words needed to state them
but before using them in any inference.

-- 
Mikko