Path: 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: Fri, 2 May 2025 11:10:02 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 153 Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 02 May 2025 10:10:04 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cb793c8c3b892b6beb6c2827261db101"; logging-data="736426"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19nziKEiY2/AvTyTGG9K8OX" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:9y4kzt6gL6ImzKn/sz6NVhGHB2U= On 2025-04-30 15:52:06 +0000, olcott said: > On 4/29/2025 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >> 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. > > Until the knowledge ontology is fully populated with > Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates. In order to attach meaning to any meaning postulates you need meaningful expessions of a natural language. Otherwilse the "meaning postulates" are only meaningless strings. -- Mikko