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 computation & human reasoning encoded as finite string transformations --- Quine Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 12:16:57 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 177 Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:16:57 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="90fc6e9d1f21204b8a2ec6412f638d67"; logging-data="1546646"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18OgTL64Q6u8WAz9qeAoqAK" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:6hpMGzSSgWEWYzWLIu0uQJfpLJI= Bytes: 8558 On 2025-04-28 15:32:05 +0000, olcott said: > On 4/28/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/ >> >> 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. >> > > The otherwise meaningless term Bachelor(x) is stipulated > to mean the predefined terms of Male(x) & ~Married(x) & Adult(x). The word "bachelor" is a word of a natural language and has a meaning. A definition can relate the otherwise meaningless symbol "Bachelor" to the meaningless symbols "Male", "Married", and "Adult" but leaves it otherwise meaningless. > This is just like BASIC > 100 let x = 5 No, it is. BASIC defines an execution meaning to that state. But Minimal BASIC requires upper case letters. >>> 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. > > Relating terms to other terms is all that is required > to give all of the terms all of their meaning that can > be expressed in words. You cannot relate terms to other terms before you have defined words or symbols and syntax to express that relation. > We need not go into the philosophy of language theories > of how the first words acquired their original meaning. Then do not. > We simply plug the detailed meanings into a knowledge > ontology inheritance hierarchy. This is all encoded using > extensions to Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates. Richard > Montague already greatly extended these. You cannot plug meanings into a hierarchy. You can only plug words or symbols. -- Mikko