Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite string transformations --- Quine

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
<is> 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 <are>
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 pure Natural Language, but a formalize variant, and thus can only process things in that formailzed variant.