Path: ...!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 computation & human reasoning encoded as finite string
 transformations --- Quine
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 13:18:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <vulse2$1bf1j$5@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>
 <cbac79909cd10c912558a45e93f9b72c53e294a7@i2pn2.org>
 <vuj1j0$2lf64$7@dont-email.me> <vuks28$f9ur$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 20:18:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ee5019efe4d0d5f225206792de93e35a";
	logging-data="1424435"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uoYVBRJo/rrK6r0iF0cJU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jBWZ06xaTdLV7urznfakfn59rcg=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250427-6, 4/27/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vuks28$f9ur$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7028

On 4/27/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-04-26 16:28:16 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 4/25/2025 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/25/25 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but not in the way you try to imply, because you just don't 
>>> understand what he says. Your problem is he is talking about your 
>>> knowledge and intelegence level, as you have seriouse problems with 
>>> some of the basic concepts of language theory.
>>
>> He does not have a clue how words acquire meaning as proved
>> by his failing to understand how Bachelor(x) gets its meaning.
> 
> As he says a lot about how words acquire meaning he obviously had at
> least a clue. You can't quote even one sentence that you could argue
> against.
> 

   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

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer