Path: ...!news.misty.com!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,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: All computation & human reasoning encoded as finite string
 transformations --- Quine
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 12:59:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 409
Message-ID: <vulra7$1bf1j$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vu343r$20gn$2@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> <vujhur$35hcg$3@dont-email.me>
 <vulgkb$177b$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 19:59:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ee5019efe4d0d5f225206792de93e35a";
	logging-data="1424435"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19yHgd4t0pAIeV24e2Y7Q3e"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Kb5DGfEsCwt1+c+HPyQ+WfVA+BY=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250427-6, 4/27/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vulgkb$177b$1@news.muc.de>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 17668

On 4/27/2025 9:57 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> No answer?
> 

My statements are self-evidently correct as proven by the
meaning of their words.

It <is> inherently true that a body of analytic knowledge
can be comprised by applying semantic logical entailment to
a set of basic facts expressed in language.

>> Everyone knows that Quine rejected the analytic/synthetic
>> distinction.
> 
> False.  There are people who don't know it, and are likely happier and
> more fulfilled for lack of that knowledge.
> 

*This <is> the unequivocal line of demarcation*
It <is> inherently true that a body of analytic knowledge
can be comprised by applying semantic logical entailment to
a set of basic facts expressed in language.

> I haven't read Quine's paper either, so I can't definitively pronounce
> on it any more than you can.  But there is a discussion of it on

I just found the 98 instances of the term [synonym].
That alone shows that he is quite confused.
I didn't need to do that much. I only needed to know
that

   Quine argues that all attempts to define and
   understand analyticity are circular. Therefore,
   the notion of analyticity should be rejected
   https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/

He is stupidly wrong a about this. Analytic knowledge
exists in an acyclic directed graph tree of knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

*A type hierarchy is a knowledge tree acyclic graph*
   By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine
   which says that the objects of thought (or, in another
   interpretation, the symbolic expressions) 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

> Wikipedia.  There it describes how Quine demonstrated that there is no
> hard and fast line between analytic and synthetic knowledge.  That's not
> the same as what you asserted.
> 
   Quine argues that all attempts to define and
   understand analyticity are circular. Therefore,
   the notion of analyticity should be rejected
   https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/

The Münchhausen trilemma makes this same mistake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

Expressions of analytic truth is proven entirely on the
basis of a semantic connection to its semantic meaning also
expressed in language.

>> If you don't know this or don't believe this I DON'T CARE.
> 
> It would appear that you care a great deal.
> 
>> 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 ....
> 
> And that typo epitomises one of the difficulties in your viewpoint.
> There is no single definitive set of basic facts.  There are only lots
> of sets of basic facts, all of them incomplete.
> 
> An essential feature of a set is membership; either an element is a
> member of a set or it's not.  Since there's no workable criterion for
> membership of your purported set of all basic facts, that set does not
> exist.
> 

That no complete definition of basic facts has
currently been fully elaborated sure as Hell does
not even hint that such a definition cannot be provided.

It seems to me that the compositional meaning
of "basic[common]" and "facts[common]" fully
specifies the meaning that I intend.

This definition already excluded your "value
judgment opinion" on the basis that it is
no kind of fact. Facts must be certainly true.

>> .... 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.
> 
> This "derivation" is a mysterious unspecified process. 

Only when one is utterly clueless about what semantic
logical entailment is and how it works. It is merely
a deep enrichment to the syllogism.

> One can derive
> theorems from mathematical axioms and logic, one can derive scientific
> truth from observations.  But outside of these fields, this idea of
> "derivation from basic facts" would appear to be questionable at best.
> 

It is stipulated that {cats> <are> {animals}.
It is ONLY this stipulation that provides semantic
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========