Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Post by PeteOlcott »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:39 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 1:39 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Jun 06, 2020 11:39 pm

Signifiers are arbitrary.
You are being ridiculous.
That I was able to decode the little shapes (characters) on my screen as a
rebuttal conclusively proves that these tiny little shapes have been stipulated
to have a specific semantic meaning.

The assignment of semantic meaning to sets of tiny little shapes is
a very well defined standard called natural language. Here is the
Chinese equivalent of what you said:

指示符是任意的。
你真可笑。
You don't get to establish new words.
You and your attempt is rejected by the forum and shall never go any further.
Such megalomania is never rewarded.
I do and did create a new word you are incorrect when you say that I can't because I did.
The new term is {semantic tautology} It means that an expression of language that has been
defined to be true is impossibly false: 3 > 2
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Post by RCSaunders »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 8:41 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:29 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:08 am What and where are non-physical things, and in what way do they exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist' - and without an appeal to mysticism.
I wonder if you'd mind answering a question. What do you mean by, "exist?"

It seems like you mean, "to exist is physical," or, "nothing but the physical exists," but that may not be what you mean, so I don't want to address it unless it is.

That leads to another question, what do you regard as, "physical?" Are only entities and substances physical (rocks, planets, coal, iron, sulfur, and hydrogen, for example), or are physical properties also physical, (mass, force, momentum, size, shape, and velocity, for example)?

Thanks!
We use nouns to name things: rocks, planets, coal, and so on. But the meaning of a noun is not the thing it names, but rather the way we use it, which can be to name and talk about things. Meaning is use, and can be nothing else.

But this 'naming' idea easily confuses us. For example we talk about the size of things, and how x is taller than y - then ask misfiring questions: ah, but what is 'size', and what is 'being taller than'? They must be something, because nouns and relational terms are names of things, so they must have referents. Hence Socrates' stupid questions; hence the ridiculous Platonist-nominalist debate; and hence the invention of concepts, and other supposed abstract things - mysteries invented to explain mystseries of our own invention.

Suppose for now we use the word 'exist' in the spatio-temporal sense it often has, so that it applies, at least, to physical things and their properties - and the expression 'rocks, planets and coal exist' has a clear meaning.

Given that use of 'exist', what and where are abstract things - such as concepts, propositions, size, shape, meaning, truth, knowledge, identity, and so on (insert the abstract noun of choice) - and in what way do they exist, if it's not physically and spatio-temporally?

Cards on the table: I think belief in the existence of abstract things is a metaphysical delusion arising from an ancient nomenclaturist and mentalist mistake - a form of mysticism. So that so-called abstract things aren't things that do or don't exist anywhere, inside or outside the mind - which is itself an abstract fiction anyway. It's all been one huge category error.
Perhaps I did not frame the question well. You certainly have not answered it. I'm not making a point of any kind, I'm truly only interested in what you mean. For example:
We use nouns to name things: rocks, planets, coal, and so on. But the meaning of a noun is not the thing it names, but rather the way we use it, which can be to name and talk about things. Meaning is use, and can be nothing else.
How you are using words is exactly what I'm trying to understand. You said, "we use nouns to name things," but since it, "is not the thing it names," a word means, then: "things: rocks, planets, coal, and so on," refer to nothing other than how those words are used. If the words rocks, planets, and coal do not refer to things, your sentence would read, "we use nouns to name things: some word that means how it's used, another word that means how it's used, etc." Since a word does not refer to anything, how do you decide how it should be used?

Perhaps you can answer my question by simply saying what you mean by the word, "thing."
Skepdick
Posts: 5030
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 2:53 pm I do and did create a new word you are incorrect when you say that I can't because I did.
The new term is {semantic tautology} It means that an expression of language that has been
defined to be true is impossibly false: 3 > 2
This doesn't get you anywhere. All you are doing is you are re-inventing axioms and you are side-stepping the eval function

The expression of which language?

You can define 3 >2 as being a {semantic tautology} in your language.
I can define 2 > 3 as being a {semantic tautology} in my language.

And then the semantic tautologies of my language are not semantic tautologies of your language.

It's like trying to parse C++ code using a PROLOG interpreter. It doesn't work.

You are stuck in the Mathematical myth of denotational semantics - you are projecting meaning onto symbols that don't have any.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2196
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Post by Sculptor »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 2:53 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:39 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 1:39 am

That I was able to decode the little shapes (characters) on my screen as a
rebuttal conclusively proves that these tiny little shapes have been stipulated
to have a specific semantic meaning.

The assignment of semantic meaning to sets of tiny little shapes is
a very well defined standard called natural language. Here is the
Chinese equivalent of what you said:

指示符是任意的。
你真可笑。
You don't get to establish new words.
You and your attempt is rejected by the forum and shall never go any further.
Such megalomania is never rewarded.
I do and did create a new word you are incorrect when you say that I can't because I did.
The new term is {semantic tautology} It means that an expression of language that has been
defined to be true is impossibly false: 3 > 2
It will never catch on since "semantic" and "tautology" when used together suggest a different meaning based on their existing meanings. SInce the words already have a meaning you'd have to supplant their existing meaning for you to have created something new. This is not going to happen.
Since a tautology is a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words. A tautology is already semantic. So the phrase semantic tautology is a redundancy. Since all tautologies refer to a semantic similarity a semantic tautology is itself a tautology, like a mechanical engine, or a black darkness.
Skepdick
Posts: 5030
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 5:26 pm It will never catch on since "semantic" and "tautology" when used together suggest a different meaning based on their existing meanings. SInce the words already have a meaning you'd have to supplant their existing meaning for you to have created something new. This is not going to happen.
Since a tautology is a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words. A tautology is already semantic. So the phrase semantic tautology is a redundancy. Since all tautologies refer to a semantic similarity a semantic tautology is itself a tautology, like a mechanical engine, or a black darkness.
It has already caught on amongst computer scientists.

We already accepts and understands that words don't mean shit without interpretation. The interpretation of words is flexible and is context-dependent - languages evolve over time.

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/semantics ... g+language
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 3:19 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 2:53 pm I do and did create a new word you are incorrect when you say that I can't because I did.
The new term is {semantic tautology} It means that an expression of language that has been
defined to be true is impossibly false: 3 > 2
This doesn't get you anywhere.
Sure it does. It get you past the Münchhausen trilemma in that expressions
of language that have been defined to be true form the ultimate foundation
of their truth basis.

The Münchhausen trilemma proposes that there cannot possibly be any ultimate
foundation of the truth of anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics. If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof.

The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 3:19 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 2:53 pm I do and did create a new word you are incorrect when you say that I can't because I did.
The new term is {semantic tautology} It means that an expression of language that has been
defined to be true is impossibly false: 3 > 2
This doesn't get you anywhere. All you are doing is you are re-inventing axioms and you are side-stepping the
I am bypassing the need for model theory in that the semantics of an expression of language is
directly encoded in the formal system using Rudolf Carnap (1952) meaning postulates.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 3:19 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 2:53 pm I do and did create a new word you are incorrect when you say that I can't because I did.
The new term is {semantic tautology} It means that an expression of language that has been
defined to be true is impossibly false: 3 > 2
This doesn't get you anywhere. All you are doing is you are re-inventing axioms and you are side-stepping the eval function

The expression of which language?

You can define 3 >2 as being a {semantic tautology} in your language.
I can define 2 > 3 as being a {semantic tautology} in my language.

And then the semantic tautologies of my language are not semantic tautologies of your language.
The semantic tautology is Successor(Successor(Successor(0))) > Successor(Successor(0)).
The assignment of meaning to terms is arbitrary. The meaning itself is not arbitrary.

"3 > 2" is assigned a corresponding algorithm that operates on ASCII digits. In this
case your "2 > 3" would be decided to be incorrect based on the stipulative definition
of the set of natural numbers as ASCII strings.

The actual semantic language that I am referring to we be defined as relations between 128-bit
GUID's. We can swap out the GUID's for a different set of GUID's at any time as long as we do it
consistently the underlying semantics remains immutably unchanged.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 3:19 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 2:53 pm I do and did create a new word you are incorrect when you say that I can't because I did.
The new term is {semantic tautology} It means that an expression of language that has been
defined to be true is impossibly false: 3 > 2
You are stuck in the Mathematical myth of denotational semantics - you are projecting meaning onto symbols that don't have any.
We provide a stipulative definition to the symbols by providing their corresponding algorithm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

It is given that "3 > 2" is true by {semantic tautology}.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Post by PeteOlcott »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 5:26 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 2:53 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:39 pm

You don't get to establish new words.
You and your attempt is rejected by the forum and shall never go any further.
Such megalomania is never rewarded.
I do and did create a new word you are incorrect when you say that I can't because I did.
The new term is {semantic tautology} It means that an expression of language that has been
defined to be true is impossibly false: 3 > 2
It will never catch on since "semantic" and "tautology" when used together suggest a different meaning based on their existing meanings. SInce the words already have a meaning you'd have to supplant their existing meaning for you to have created something new. This is not going to happen.

Since a tautology is a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words. A tautology is already semantic. So the phrase semantic tautology is a redundancy. Since all tautologies refer to a semantic similarity a semantic tautology is itself a tautology, like a mechanical engine, or a black darkness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology ... the%20ball.

In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example is "x=y or x≠y". A less abstract example is "The ball is all green, or the ball is not all green". This is true regardless of the color of the ball.
Skepdick
Posts: 5030
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:43 pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology ... the%20ball.

In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example is "x=y or x≠y". A less abstract example is "The ball is all green, or the ball is not all green". This is true regardless of the color of the ball.
That doesn't work when context begins playing a role.

1+1=2
1+1=10

Both are true in their respective interpretative contexts. Decimal vs Boolean.
Skepdick
Posts: 5030
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:29 pm I am bypassing the need for model theory in that the semantics of an expression of language is
directly encoded in the formal system using Rudolf Carnap (1952) meaning postulates.
Pete, in what universe have you ever successfully encoded the complete semantics of your program in the program itself?

The insurmountable gap in all formal languages is that which cannot be made explicit and remains implicit: design choices, constraints, context, specifications, reasons for the decisions being made etc...

If you could make everything explicit software would not need comments/documentation!
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:46 pm 1+1=2
1+1=10

Both are true in their respective interpretative contexts. Decimal vs Boolean.
You mean decimal vs binary.
1+1=1 boolean.
Skepdick
Posts: 5030
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:48 pm You mean decimal vs binary.
1+1=1 boolean.
Finger slip.

You know what I meant. Boolean is not a number system.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

Post by PeteOlcott »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:48 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:46 pm 1+1=2
1+1=10

Both are true in their respective interpretative contexts. Decimal vs Boolean.
You mean decimal vs binary.
1+1=1 boolean.

Code: Select all

char AddWithCarry(char D1, char D2, char& Carry)
{
  char SUM   = ADD_Digit[D1][D2];      
  if (Carry == '1' && SUM == '9')
  { 
    SUM   = '0'; 
    Carry = '1'; 
  }
  else if (Carry == '1' && SUM < '9')
  {
    SUM   = ADD_Digit[SUM][Carry]; 
    Carry = ADD_Carry[D1][D2];   
  }
  else // Carry == '0' 
    Carry = ADD_Carry[D1][D2];   
  return SUM; 
} 


std::string Add(std::string& OP1, std::string& OP2)
{
std::string SUM;  
  char Carry = '0'; 
  for (int N = OP1.length() - 1; N >= 0; N--)
    SUM += AddWithCarry(OP1[N], OP2[N], Carry); 
  if (Carry == '1')
    SUM += '1'; 
  std::reverse(SUM.begin(), SUM.end());
  return SUM; 
}


//
// (Proven && True) || (Unproven && Untrue)
//
bool ProveInput(std::string& OP1,std::string& OP2,
                std::string& SUM, char Relational_OP)
{
  std::string RESULT;
  RESULT = Add(OP1, OP2); 
  return (RESULT == SUM);
}
 
Like I already said the semantics of the finite string is provided by its algorithm.
The meaning of natural language words can be defined using other natural language words of this same language and type theory.
The meaning of natural language words can be defined using a universal semantic language and type theory.
The universal semantic language would simply use integer tokens in place of the Natural language words.
One unique integer token would correspond to its word in every other natural language.
Post Reply