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

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
<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. 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 <exactly>
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 <is> analytic truth.
Truth expressed by physical sensations <is> 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)