Re: All computation & human reasoning encoded as finite string transformations --- Quine

On 4/26/2025 12:31 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/26/2025 11:04 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/26/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-25 21:14:30 +0000, olcott said:

 

[ .... ]

 

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.

 

I suspect Quine's statements were much more nuanced than your
understanding (or misunderstanding) of them would suggest.  Since you
can't cite Quine's original text to back up your assertions, it seems
more likely that these assertions are falsehoods.

 

Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

 

I am not going to wade through his double talk and weasel
words any more deeply that his issue with how the term Bachelor(x)
gets its meaning. He totally screwed that up proving that
he is clueless about how words get their meaning.

 Or, far more likely, you are clueless about what he actually wrote, and
what it means.
 

You can just keyword search the term 98 instances of the
term [synonym] and see all of his mistakes.

You haven't provided any evidence for you actually having read the
original.  You're likely just quoting somebody else's opinion of that
original.
 

If anyone in the universe says that the analytic/synthetic
does not exist we can ignore everything that they say and
provide the details of how analytic truth works:

 

*Semantic logical entailment from a finite list of basic facts*

 In other words, if anybody disagrees with you, you bad mouth them.
 

Not on this. This material is difficult.

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.

 

Again, this is likely false, for the same reasons.

 

Search for the 98 instances of the keyword [synonym]
and you will see what I mean. He has no idea how
synonymity works.

 

The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed in language
is an axiomatic system beginning with a finite list of basic facts.

 

You've never proven that, and it is almost certainly false.

 

A valid counter-example is categorically impossible.

 OK, take the true statement "Nuremberg is a good place to live.", a
statement expressed in language.  Please state the axioms from which this
can be derived, and show that derivation.
 

I don't think that value judgments can be derived
from basic facts thus do not count as knowledge that
can be expressed using language.
Keep trying to come up with counter-examples so that
I can generalize to prove that counter-examples are
categorically impossible.

I doubt very much you can do this.
 

  From this list the rest of general knowledge that can be expressed
in language is derived through semantic logical entailment.

 

Apart from the bits which can't be.

 

Such bits are categorically impossible for the entire
body of knowledge that can be expressed in language.

 Wrong.  I just gave an example above.  I think it likely that most bits
of knowledge expressible as language will not be derivable from your
axioms, of which you have yet to give a single example.
 

Try again. Value judgements do not count as knowledge
because they are not semantically entailed from basic facts.

The burden of proof is on you.
 

-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer