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 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: References:

<010d8210ceb735806bc64ce008551caa1035f810@i2pn2.org> 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: 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> 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