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

On 2025-04-20 19:56:48 +0000, olcott said:

On 4/20/2025 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/20/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/20/2025 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/20/25 1:53 PM, olcott wrote:

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

 But it isn't, and that is YOUR screw up. Part of the problem is that the phrase "True by the meaning of the words alone", doesn't actually have meaning in a Natural Language context, as words have vaired, imprecise, and even spectrums of meaning, perhaps even multiple meanings at once. (This is even a form of word play used to convey special meanings).
 

 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)
 

 No, the point he was making was that this is NOT the only possible meaning of Bachelor.
 

 Try reading his paper before you stupidly assume what he says.
 Quine was (on this issue) stupidly confused the whole rest of
world on the analytic/synthetic distinction so most everyone
totally lost track of expressions of language that are proven
true entirely on the basis of their meaning expressed in language.
AKA analytic(Olcott 2024)

 Like his statement:
 But it is not quite true that the synonyms 'bachelor' and 'unmarried man' are everywhere interchangeable salva veritate.

 It is not the trivial minutiae such as that. Glancing
at one sentence of a whole paper does not count as carefully
studying the paper. The salient detail about the paper is
that Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.

He did not claim that. He said that there are truths that are neither
fully analytic nor fully synthetic so the often assumed boundary between
the two does not exist.
--
Mikko