Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite string transformations --- Quine Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:04:01 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 91 Message-ID: References:

<57fb4080f3b2783cb49a1aacdb43f02343fe9038@i2pn2.org> <28809586532a39a78550d734ce59b143ee8d28a9@i2pn2.org>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 11:04:02 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="77e99febd2ea8fbd06e9bc59456aaf8d"; logging-data="294251"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+mncMp3P7PZ2zvXeIQ/qN9" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:SJA2yLj4EFPht/6K64P98Ys1gN8= Bytes: 5044 On 2025-04-21 20:57:55 +0000, olcott said: > On 4/21/2025 5:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-04-20 19:56:48 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 4/20/2025 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 4/20/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 4/20/2025 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 4/20/25 1:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> the {analytic} side of the analytic/synthetic distinction >>>>>>> that humanity has totally screwed up since >>>>>> >>>>>> But it isn't, and that is YOUR screw up. Part of the problem is that >>>>>> the phrase "True by the meaning of the words alone", doesn't actually >>>>>> have meaning in a Natural Language context, as words have vaired, >>>>>> imprecise, and even spectrums of meaning, perhaps even multiple >>>>>> meanings at once. (This is even a form of word play used to convey >>>>>> special meanings). >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, the point he was making was that this is NOT the only possible >>>>>> meaning of Bachelor. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Try reading his paper before you stupidly assume what he says. >>>>> >>>>> Quine was (on this issue) stupidly confused the whole rest of >>>>> world on the analytic/synthetic distinction so most everyone >>>>> totally lost track of expressions of language that are proven >>>>> true entirely on the basis of their meaning expressed in language. >>>>> AKA analytic(Olcott 2024) >>>> >>>> Like his statement: >>>> >>>> But it is not quite true that the synonyms 'bachelor' and 'unmarried >>>> man' are everywhere interchangeable salva veritate. >>> >>> It is not the trivial minutiae such as that. Glancing >>> at one sentence of a whole paper does not count as carefully >>> studying the paper. The salient detail about the paper is >>> that Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST. >> >> He did not claim that. He said that there are truths that are neither >> fully analytic nor fully synthetic so the often assumed boundary between >> the two does not exist. > > The body of human knowledge that is proven true entirely > on the basis of the connection from an expression of > language to its meaning also expressed in language is the > kind of analytic that I have always been referring to. Before you can connect with an expression of a language one expression to its meanings you must have a connection of at least one expresson to its meaning. > I just found the right words this year. The basic facts > (cannot be derived from other facts) are the axioms of > this system. The only rule-of-inference is semantic > logical entailment. You can't express the meaning of "semantic logical entailment" so that it can be used as an inference rule. In particular, the wor "semantic" prevents its use in a formal system. -- Mikko