Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 5027
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:51 pm That is already happening when the Trump administration defines alternative-facts.
Gullible fools buy it and the rest know it is deception.
So why do you think the gullible fools are going to believe your algorithm?
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:53 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:51 pm That is already happening when the Trump administration defines alternative-facts.
Gullible fools buy it and the rest know it is deception.
So why do you think the gullible fools are going to believe your algorithm?
It depends on how nutty they are. Gullible fools currently don't believe in the
mathematics of exponential growth rates. There is nothing we can do about
them except find ways to silence them.
Skepdick
Posts: 5027
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:59 pm It depends on how nutty they are. Gullible fools currently don't believe in the
mathematics of exponential growth rates. There is nothing we can do about
them except find ways to silence them.
So, your "algorithm" is not going to solve the problem.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:53 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:53 pm The root node has a hierarchy of sub-types and a list of properties.
These are all outgoing directed graph edges. Acyclic directed graphs
can't be infinite anything.
Pete, what is the semantic of a "thing" ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neuma ... set_theory
It might be something like the universal proper class.
Skepdick
Posts: 5027
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:01 pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neuma ... set_theory
It might be something like the universal proper class.
No. What is the semantic of a "thing" within your system?

What finite strings is it related to?
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:02 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:01 pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neuma ... set_theory
It might be something like the universal proper class.
No. What is the semantic of a "thing" within your system?

What finite strings is it related to?
Do you understand that anything and everything is a thing?
It would be the universal set from set theory if set theory did not stupidly allow a set to be a member of itself.
Skepdick
Posts: 5027
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:17 pm Do you understand that anything and everything is a thing?
It would be the universal set from set theory if set theory did not stupidly allow a set to be a member of itself.
It doesn't matter if I understand it - you are trying to make your algorithm understand it.

Explain to your algorithm the semantics of a "thing".
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:43 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:17 pm Do you understand that anything and everything is a thing?
It would be the universal set from set theory if set theory did not stupidly allow a set to be a member of itself.
It doesn't matter if I understand it - you are trying to make your algorithm understand it.

Explain to your algorithm the semantics of a "thing".
It just knows that it is the base class of these two mutually exclusive classes:
Physically_Existing, Conceptually_Existing.
Skepdick
Posts: 5027
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:36 pm It just knows that it is the base class of these two mutually exclusive classes:
Physically_Existing, Conceptually_Existing.
Quit stalling.

If the meaning of the English word "thing" can be expressed as a relation between finite strings, then express it.

If the meaning of the English phrase "Physically Existing" can be expressed as a relation between finite strings, then express it.
If the meaning of the English phrase "Conceptually Existing" can be expressed as a relation between finite strings, then express it.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 11:00 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:36 pm It just knows that it is the base class of these two mutually exclusive classes:
Physically_Existing, Conceptually_Existing.
Quit stalling.

If the meaning of the English word "thing" can be expressed as a relation between finite strings, then express it.

If the meaning of the English phrase "Physically Existing" can be expressed as a relation between finite strings, then express it.
If the meaning of the English phrase "Conceptually Existing" can be expressed as a relation between finite strings, then express it.
As with the whole system the meaning must be build up from meaning postulates.
Every finite string is 100% totally meaningless except for its stipulated relations
to other finite strings.

Since I am focusing on the architecture of such a system I will probably never get
around to the meaning of the English word: "Thing". I have spent many thousands
of hours on only thinking of "Thing" as the base class of the knowledge ontology.

Maybe I need to formalize something like 8th grade astronomy of the solar system
to create a full example that is simple enough that it won't too long to specify.
Skepdick
Posts: 5027
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 1:11 am As with the whole system the meaning must be build up from meaning postulates.
Every finite string is 100% totally meaningless except for its stipulated relations
to other finite strings.
Yes! So the finite string {Thing} is meaningless.
And the finite strings you relate to {Thing} (be there 1 or infinitely many of them) will all meaningless too.
And the strings you relate to those strings - meaningless too.

Your entire system will be meaningless.
PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 1:11 am Since I am focusing on the architecture of such a system I will probably never get
around to the meaning of the English word: "Thing".
But "thing" is your root node?!?!?! "Thing" is your foundation.

If your foundation is meaningless, then so is everything you build on top of it!
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 12:38 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 1:11 am As with the whole system the meaning must be build up from meaning postulates.
Every finite string is 100% totally meaningless except for its stipulated relations
to other finite strings.
Yes! So the finite string {Thing} is meaningless.
And the finite strings you relate to {Thing} (be there 1 or infinitely many of them) will all meaningless too.
And the strings you relate to those strings - meaningless too.

Your entire system will be meaningless.
PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 1:11 am Since I am focusing on the architecture of such a system I will probably never get
around to the meaning of the English word: "Thing".
But "thing" is your root node?!?!?! "Thing" is your foundation.

If your foundation is meaningless, then so is everything you build on top of it!
The root node needs no English description to have all of its essential
meaning stipulated by its relation to other finite strings.
Skepdick
Posts: 5027
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 4:34 pm The root node needs no English description to have all of its essential
meaning stipulated by its relation to other finite strings.
Pete, what does the meaningless finite string "THING" mean if it's related to the finite strings "kjdhqkjhdkjqwhdk", "jadhgfjkfhahgdfjhgdfjkg" "uhidhgiuhzgiuhdroiudhrt" and "zbcjkzgyjsgfoziusgefoiszdht" ?

If your root node is defined by its relations to its children, then what are your leaf nodes defined by? Because it's an acyclic graph right? So it has leaf nodes.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 6:04 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 4:34 pm The root node needs no English description to have all of its essential
meaning stipulated by its relation to other finite strings.
Pete, what does the meaningless finite string "THING" mean if it's related to the finite strings "kjdhqkjhdkjqwhdk", "jadhgfjkfhahgdfjhgdfjkg" "uhidhgiuhzgiuhdroiudhrt" and "zbcjkzgyjsgfoziusgefoiszdht" ?

If your root node is defined by its relations to its children, then what are your leaf nodes defined by? Because it's an acyclic graph right? So it has leaf nodes.
THING is not a meaningless string, it is the root of the tree of Analytical_Knowledge.
Your examples of random gibberish are not elements of the set of Analytical_Knowledge

Analytical_Knowledge
The set of expression of language verified as true entirely on their semantic meaning specified as stipulated relations between expressions of this language.

∀X ∈ Analytical_Knowledge (True(Analytical_Knowledge, X) ≡ Theorem(Analytical_Knowledge, X))

Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
Skepdick
Posts: 5027
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:27 pm THING is not a meaningless string,, it is the root of the tree of Analytical_Knowledge.
^^^^ THAT is all gibberish. You said that the meaning of "thing" is....
PeteOlcott wrote: stipulated by its relation to other finite strings.
So is it stipulated by its relations to other strings; or is its meaning stipulated by the English definition "the root of the tree of Analytical_Knowledge."

Make up your mind.

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:27 pm The set of expression of language verified as true entirely on their semantic meaning specified as stipulated relations between expressions of this language.

∀X ∈ Analytical_Knowledge (True(Analytical_Knowledge, X) ≡ Theorem(Analytical_Knowledge, X))
Which language is "this" language? You keep switching between English and some formal gibberish.

Choose a language and stick to it.
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply