Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!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: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 07:20:25 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References:

<9461c2d3ad29c99c9d2d999cbc447492836ab935@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 11:36:23 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1534108"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: On 4/22/25 11:48 PM, olcott wrote: > On 4/22/2025 5:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 4/22/25 2:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>> 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. I uniquely made his mistake more clear. >> >> In other words, he didn't use the words you "quoted", but this is just >> another of your normal misinterpreation of someone smarter than you. >> >>> >>> He disagrees that there are any expressions that are >>> proven completely true entirely on the basis of their >>> meaning. >> >> No, he says there are statements that are not provable true on the >> basis of their words. >> > > We aren't talking about that set. We are talking about statements > that are provable on the basis of the meaning of their words. > More technically expressions of language have semantic connections > to their meaning that prove them true. > >> He doesn't deny that SOME statements can be proven true, only that a >> system that is based on natural language can not use that as a sole >> basis of operation. >> >> You just don't understand the intracacies of the words being used, >> which is why you keep on twisting the meanings. >> >>> >>> HERE IS HOW HE IS WRONG >>> Truth is a necessary consequence of applying the truth >>> preserving operation of semantic entailment to the set >>> of basic facts (cannot be derived from other facts) >>> expressed in language. >> >> Except truth is more than that, > > Truth that can be expressed in language is > Truth that can be expressed in language. But not all Truth is expressable in language, and thus you aren't talking about the same thing. > >> and less, since you keep on wanting to include natural language in >> your meanings, and natural language is by its nature fussy and has >> holes in it. >> >>> >>> Truth expressed in language analytic truth. >>> Truth expressed by physical sensations empirical truth. >>> >> >> And what about Truth expressed in language that needs idea from >> physical sensations to fully understand? >> > > The concepts of physical sensations are fully elaborated verbally. Ok, then what is the smell of a rose. Or the color red. EXACT elaborations please. > >> Or context? >> > > Situation context can be encoded verbally. But often isn't, and that is the problem with trying to use natural language as your base. > >> The problem is "language" (as in Natural Language) isn't well enough >> defined to fully specify truth. > > Montague Grammar shows the way > Nope, it does some of it, providing a standardized way of trying to interprete a natural language, but it doesn't fully succeed. The statementes correctly processed by the Montague Grammer are only a sub-set of the full domain of Natural Langague. In part because Natuaral Language is not restricted to expressing statements with precise meaning, and thus any attempt to claim a precise meaning for the statement must be incorrect, or at least incomplete (which is incorrect if it claims to be THE MEANING)