Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net!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
Subject: Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite
 string transformations --- Quine
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 13:38:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 166
Message-ID: <vultjk$1bf1j$8@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <010d8210ceb735806bc64ce008551caa1035f810@i2pn2.org>
 <vuku44$heti$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 20:38:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ee5019efe4d0d5f225206792de93e35a";
	logging-data="1424435"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Bfj1ETju4z3vfN1AlHRih"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5vgfvnPZ0n594DJkkbN2HZ2GbNc=
In-Reply-To: <vuku44$heti$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250427-6, 4/27/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 8274

On 4/27/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

Yes that seems to be exactly what I have been proposing
for years. The "new" language is Rudolf Carnap Meaning
Postulates / Montague Grammar extended to cover all
natural language semantics.

This is organized into a knowledge ontology type hierarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
The Cyc project uses GUIDs instead of finite strings to label
unique sense meanings.

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