Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite string transformations --- Quine Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 21:39:19 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <4bf0086d97d0f8b2aed2049a30d204eadb7b1c6e@i2pn2.org> References:

<010d8210ceb735806bc64ce008551caa1035f810@i2pn2.org>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 01:44:16 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2185630"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 8320 Lines: 169 On 4/27/25 2:38 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. > Which means you are giving up the concept that you are dealing with a ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========