Path: 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 23:30:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <vun09o$2ett4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vu343r$20gn$2@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vulse2$1bf1j$5@dont-email.me> <vum1ns$1q85$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 06:30:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cc4092dca5685a99a96dd309586b7dc0";
	logging-data="2586532"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Om0DzSDdFBLpXeC17306r"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eTl8gWpKzyMn+Ngohg1kNSoqLYg=
In-Reply-To: <vum1ns$1q85$1@news.muc.de>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250427-6, 4/27/2025), Outbound message

On 4/27/2025 2:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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:
> 
> [ .... ]
> 
>>>>>> 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 above 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.
> 
> He was a leading academic at a prestigeous university.  It is vanishingly
> unlike that he was "stupidly wrong".  It is far more likely that you have
> failed to understand his message; that it is you who is stupidly wrong.
> 
>> Analytic knowledge exists in an acyclic directed graph tree of
>> knowledge.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
> 
> An acyclic directed graph?  Highly implausible.  Any real system of
> knowledge organised in a graph (if that is even possible) is going to
> have cycles in it.  That's assuming "analytic knowledge" exists at all.
> 
> [ .... ]

    Gödel  agrees
   *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 … 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
> 


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