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 computation & human reasoning encoded as finite string transformations --- Quine
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 11:19:20 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <vundm8$2s577$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> <cbac79909cd10c912558a45e93f9b72c53e294a7@i2pn2.org> <vuj1j0$2lf64$7@dont-email.me> <vuks28$f9ur$1@dont-email.me> <vulse2$1bf1j$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:19:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2b5c102808e347f35c2369ffef09ae21";
	logging-data="3020007"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1897U9mNJLy/2z4c5G9GjOK"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nu/gs02befXnAuWOyH9JH0tVp7A=
Bytes: 6881

On 2025-04-27 18:18:42 +0000, olcott said:

> 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/

The problem is that in order to define anything you need words with
known meanings. But the meanings of undefined words are fuzzy and
ambiguous, and those meanings can only be known empirically. No
analytic knowledge can be expressed without empirical knowledge of
meanings of words.

> 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 directed graph tree only relates terms to other terms. It does not
give them any other meaning.

-- 
Mikko