Path: ...!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 computation & human reasoning encoded as finite string transformations --- Quine Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 13:18:42 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 138 Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 20:18:43 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ee5019efe4d0d5f225206792de93e35a"; logging-data="1424435"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uoYVBRJo/rrK6r0iF0cJU" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:jBWZ06xaTdLV7urznfakfn59rcg= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250427-6, 4/27/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 7028 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> 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/ 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 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 (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic expressions) 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