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

On 4/24/25 3:28 PM, olcott wrote:

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/

WHich it seems you don't understand what he is saying, because you just don't understand the basics of philispophcal logic, or the properties of Natural Language.

 

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.

>
Where does he say that 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?
>

 That is what he totally gets wrong when he rejects the
analytic/synthetic distinction.

So, the fact you can't actually quote a statement, taken if full context, where he does that, just shows that you don't understand what you are claiming.

 

Truth expressed in language <is> analytic truth.

>
No, not always. An empirical truth expressed in a language is an
empirical truth. But which is a truth that is inferred from two
premises, one analytic and one empirical?
>

 The set of basic (indivisible) facts are the axioms for
the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language.

But Natural Language, which is the domain that Quine writes about, has problems with precision that he points out, which makes the sharp division claimed to be not so sharp.

 

Truth expressed by physical sensations <is> empirical truth.

>
I don't think a set of physical sensations can express a truth.
>

 "I saw a cat walk across my living room floor."
Requires seeing a cat.
 

No it doesn't. It claims there to have been a set of physical senstation, but I can say that an not have seen it.