Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

[RCSaunders]

But, 'it does not matter what character is used', just as long as the character is already understood, correct?

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, Age, but it seems like a fair question, and I'll answer what I think you are probably asking.

A symbol, in language, can be any arbitrary mark or vocalization, even a gesture (sign language and semaphor, for example), that stands for or represents a concept. The sign or symbol, itself, has no meaning. A concept is an identification of some existent. An existent is anything that is, an entity, an event, an attribute, a relationship, whether material (rocks, houses, animals, planets) or epistemological (history, mathematics, science, fiction). What a concept identifies (the actual existents) is what the concept means.

So, when you say, "it does not matter what character is used, just as long as the character is already understood," is only true so long as by, "already understood," means "the actual concept the character represents is known." Since, the meaning of a concept is the actual existents it identifies, no character, symbol, or sign means anything unless it represent a concept that means actual existents. All by itself, no symbol means anything.

If that's not clear, please feel free to question further.

[PeteOlcott]

An ISO standard dictionary would assign a subscript to each of the sense meanings
of a word and this would be mapped to a unique 128-bit GUID integer in the formalism.

What happens when you run out of GUIDs ?

As soon as we run out of:
340282366920938463463374607431768211456
unique atomic concepts everyone can sit Zazen forever.

[Skepdick]

As soon as we run out of:
340282366920938463463374607431768211456
unique atomic concepts everyone can sit Zazen forever.

We have run out already. There are way more atoms than that in the universe.

[PeteOlcott]

As soon as we run out of:
340282366920938463463374607431768211456
unique atomic concepts everyone can sit Zazen forever.

We have run out already. There are way more atoms than that in the universe.

One unit of atomic semantics is a single existing relation between one concept and a set of concepts.
"I own a cat named Sam and a cat named Fred"
Ownership(Owner, ThingOwned) is one of the atomic relations of the above sentence.

[Skepdick]

One unit of atomic semantics is a single existing relation between one concept and a set of concepts.
"I own a cat named Sam and a cat named Fred"
Ownership(Owner, ThingOwned) is one of the atomic relations of the above sentence.

Oh. Then you are DEFINITELY fucked. The relationships in complex graphs grow as factorials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

Seriously though. If you need unique identifiers - what's wrong with the integers?
Is there some property you desire from GUIDs? Sharding? Indexing?

[PeteOlcott]

One unit of atomic semantics is a single existing relation between one concept and a set of concepts.
"I own a cat named Sam and a cat named Fred"
Ownership(Owner, ThingOwned) is one of the atomic relations of the above sentence.

Oh. Then you are DEFINITELY fucked. The relationships in complex graphs grow as factorials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

Seriously though. If you need unique identifiers - what's wrong with the integers?
Is there some property you desire from GUIDs? Sharding? Indexing?

The concept of GUID is understood to be unique. I don't want to digress into
a whole separate conversation about how I know that the integers of my
formal system are unique.

The relations of everything that is currently known about everything is
enormous yet comprised entirely of a much smaller set of different kinds
of types of relations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... B6del_1944

By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc. (with a similar hierarchy for extensions), and that sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of types fitting together.

[Skepdick]

The concept of GUID is understood to be unique. I don't want to digress into
a whole separate conversation about how I know that the integers of my
formal system are unique.

Nobody is asking you any of that. The concept of GUID is unique exactly like the concept of integer is unique.
A GUID is an image of the integers.

I am simply asking you WHY you have chosen the upper bound you have chosen.

The relations of everything that is currently known about everything is
enormous yet comprised entirely of a much smaller set of different kinds
of types of relations.

Yea. And why do you think the number of relations is 2^128 or less? How did you arrive at this estimation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... B6del_1944

By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc. (with a similar hierarchy for extensions), and that sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of types fitting together.

You clearly didn't read this page.

The opposite of impredicativity is predicativity, which essentially entails building stratified (or ramified) theories where quantification over lower levels results in variables of some new type, distinguished from the lower types that the variable ranges over. A prototypical example is intuitionistic type theory, which retains ramification so as to discard impredicativity.

Q.E.D you are trying to build a system which can predicate Truth at the expense of self-reference/recursion. How many times must we go over this?

[PeteOlcott]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... B6del_1944

By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc. (with a similar hierarchy for extensions), and that sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of types fitting together.

You clearly didn't read this page.

The opposite of impredicativity is predicativity, which essentially entails building stratified (or ramified) theories where quantification over lower levels results in variables of some new type, distinguished from the lower types that the variable ranges over. A prototypical example is intuitionistic type theory, which retains ramification so as to discard impredicativity.

Q.E.D you are trying to build a system which can predicate Truth at the expense of self-reference/recursion. How many times must we go over this?

I don't even bother to even look at all of the wrong-headed way of doing things.
I simply build the correct way of doing things totally from scratch.
https://fs.blog/2018/04/first-principles/

When I use language I almost always totally discard all of the term-of-the-art
supercision of the common meaning of terms. If you want to say a new idea
then make a new word. To give common words 10,000 different obscure
term-of-the-art meanings does nothing more than totally screw up the
communication process.

These terms of the art definitions box people into corners where the actual truth
becomes inexpressible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism
I don't give a rat's ass that linguists reject the idea of Linguistic_determinism.
Linguists are not philosophers of language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impredicativity is a damn screwy word the
screws up the common meaning of predictive. If you want to talk about the issues
of self-reference use "pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004)".

My Minimal Type Theory is based on the theory of simple types shown above.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

[Skepdick]

When I use language I almost always totally discard all of the term-of-the-art
supercision of the common meaning of terms. If you want to say a new idea
then make a new word. To give common words 10,000 different obscure
term-of-the-art meanings does nothing more than totally screw up the
communication process.

Why the hell are you communicating with me in English then?!?

Communicate with GUIDs !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impredicativity is a damn screwy word the
screws up the common meaning of predictive. If you want to talk about the issues
of self-reference use "pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004)".

Impredicativity sure is a much shorter phrase than "pathological self-reference".

Also, self-reference is NEVER pathological. You are being as dumb as most Philosophers on this website trying to eliminate the human element from the equation.

[PeteOlcott]

When I use language I almost always totally discard all of the term-of-the-art
supercision of the common meaning of terms. If you want to say a new idea
then make a new word. To give common words 10,000 different obscure
term-of-the-art meanings does nothing more than totally screw up the
communication process.

Why the hell are you communicating with me in English then?!?

Communicate with GUIDs !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impredicativity is a damn screwy word the
screws up the common meaning of predictive. If you want to talk about the issues
of self-reference use "pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004)".

Impredicativity sure is a much shorter phrase than "pathological self-reference".

Also, self-reference is NEVER pathological. You are being as dumb as most Philosophers on this website trying to eliminate the human element from the equation.

Impredicativity has the compositional meaning of not predictive which literally mean unable to predict.

Pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) Says what it means and means what it says.

Pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004)
Is the case where the self-reference of an expression prevents this expression
from being a truth-bearer.

[Scott Mayers]

The way that I divide analytic from synthetic may be unconventional. Every aspect of knowledge that can be represented in language and encoded as strings of characters is {analytic knowledge}. Every aspect of knowledge that can only be perceived as sensations through the sense organs is {empirical knowledge}. I discard the use of the term synthetic.

The above analytic versus empirical distinction would seem to overcome any possible objection that this distinction cannot be made unequivocal.

Semantic Tautology
I am creating a brand new idea that I named {semantic tautology}. A semantic tautology occurs when a new combination of ideas is assigned to a word or phrase making a brand new term. To verify that a semantic tautology is true only requires verifying that this set of ideas has been assigned to this term. That cats are animals is an example of a semantic tautology.

Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

Odd reversal in meaning.

The statement "cats are animals" is analytic which means that we CAN analyze this sentence precisely because it does not ADD extraneous meaning. "Cats are cute pets." is synthetic because while it may be true that cats are potential pets, nothing logical can be analyzed between the subject, 'cats', and the predicate meaning, things that are cute pets uniquely. The synthetic meanings are those that "is assigned to a word or phrase making a brand new term." Thus you are confusing the traditional meanings to which were intended to discriminate extended emotional meaning into statements that hide its ambiguity.

When original terms are created, emotive ones of the same term get added according to society and politics of the day and place. That's why certain terms are 'taboo', for instance. These kinds of words often tends to FLIP the original logical meanings where they DO have some evaluative meaning. What might be defined with a 'good' value, might flip to become the opposite by some culture in time and back again.

I'd give you some examples, but it might be 'taboo' for me to even present an example. That's the very problem of the 'synthetic' additions. But here is a cheap potential example: Assume some person with the last name, "Good", became an infamous genocidal leader who was overthrown. The hatred against such a person would assign a novel use of the term in a derogatory way. In time, if 'good' could not be used without someone being unable to defend the original meaning every time they use it, the new synthetic intention affects how functional one can use it in practice. Then the term 'good' becomes a term meaning something that refers to something derogatory and nullifies the historical meaning. Politically such social evolution constantly competes to HIDE the past, like how people tear down statues or destroy prior historical monuments. It aides some to deplatform those with potential sincerity for those even using a word that may have no alternative way to express one's meaning.

[NOTE: "Copyright" assertions here are void on these forums, by the way. These sites are designed to collect ideas to be used elsewhere, whether it be to collect data for statistical interests of participants or to protentially co-opt the ownership of people's views. I don't like it and share your concern. But unless we have some International means to assure protection of the individual's right online with some kind of "End-user" default agreement againt site Eulas that ubiquitously impose it upon us to 'agree' (non-negotiably), this is powerless. People have clever ways to desguise 'ownership' of intellectual content. I know because I've had this done to me before and it is making me more and more hesitant of providing meaningful content online anymore.]

[Sculptor]

When I use language I almost always totally discard all of the term-of-the-art
supercision of the common meaning of terms. If you want to say a new idea
then make a new word. To give common words 10,000 different obscure
term-of-the-art meanings does nothing more than totally screw up the
communication process.

Why the hell are you communicating with me in English then?!?

Communicate with GUIDs !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impredicativity is a damn screwy word the
screws up the common meaning of predictive. If you want to talk about the issues
of self-reference use "pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004)".

Impredicativity sure is a much shorter phrase than "pathological self-reference".

Also, self-reference is NEVER pathological. You are being as dumb as most Philosophers on this website trying to eliminate the human element from the equation.

Impredicativity has the compositional meaning of not predictive which literally mean unable to predict.

Pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) Says what it means and means what it says.

Pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004)
Is the case where the self-reference of an expression prevents this expression
from being a truth-bearer.

Olcott is a megalomaniac (Sculptor2020)

[PeteOlcott]

The way that I divide analytic from synthetic may be unconventional. Every aspect of knowledge that can be represented in language and encoded as strings of characters is {analytic knowledge}. Every aspect of knowledge that can only be perceived as sensations through the sense organs is {empirical knowledge}. I discard the use of the term synthetic.

The above analytic versus empirical distinction would seem to overcome any possible objection that this distinction cannot be made unequivocal.

Semantic Tautology
I am creating a brand new idea that I named {semantic tautology}. A semantic tautology occurs when a new combination of ideas is assigned to a word or phrase making a brand new term. To verify that a semantic tautology is true only requires verifying that this set of ideas has been assigned to this term. That cats are animals is an example of a semantic tautology.

Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

Odd reversal in meaning.

The statement "cats are animals" is analytic which means that we CAN analyze this sentence precisely because it does not ADD extraneous meaning. "Cats are cute pets." is synthetic

I divide up the analytic versus synthetic distinction (of knowledge) differently for two reasons:
(1) Logically justified certainty only exists for expressions of language that can be verified as true entirely on the basis of their meaning.
(2) To provide the means for making the distinction unequivocal.

"Cats are cute pets" is not any kind of knowledge it is only an opinion.
"Cats can be pets" is analytical.
"A cat walked across the floor right now" is synthetic under my revised criteria.

[Scott Mayers]

The way that I divide analytic from synthetic may be unconventional. Every aspect of knowledge that can be represented in language and encoded as strings of characters is {analytic knowledge}. Every aspect of knowledge that can only be perceived as sensations through the sense organs is {empirical knowledge}. I discard the use of the term synthetic.

The above analytic versus empirical distinction would seem to overcome any possible objection that this distinction cannot be made unequivocal.

Semantic Tautology
I am creating a brand new idea that I named {semantic tautology}. A semantic tautology occurs when a new combination of ideas is assigned to a word or phrase making a brand new term. To verify that a semantic tautology is true only requires verifying that this set of ideas has been assigned to this term. That cats are animals is an example of a semantic tautology.

Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

Odd reversal in meaning.

The statement "cats are animals" is analytic which means that we CAN analyze this sentence precisely because it does not ADD extraneous meaning. "Cats are cute pets." is synthetic

I divide up the analytic versus synthetic distinction (of knowledge) differently for two reasons:
(1) Logically justified certainty only exists for expressions of language that can be verified as true entirely on the basis of their meaning.
(2) To provide the means for making the distinction unequivocal.

"Cats are cute pets" is not any kind of knowledge it is only an opinion.
"Cats can be pets" is analytical.
"A cat walked across the floor right now" is synthetic under my revised criteria.

What those in logic of the past wanted to do is to try to see if they can discover truth by only using classes with statements that are more strictly universal, such as set theory uses, to avoid bias or confusion in meaning. The idea was to try to find out if you can discover reality from nothing but the simplest logical CONSTANTS. To do this requires intial propositions that lack literal claims about reality but are still true by default of the construct itself. That logic itself is a reality about nature itself suffices.

So while I think you may understand and agree as you demonstrate the MEANING within those calling themselves, Analytical, you falsely assume that the semantic content itself as what is at issue. They only meant to be sure that ONLY the semantic meanings requires to be true via the logical construction and not whether the literal real constants, like "cats" or "pets" are actually real. As long as the FORM is sound via the logic, the validity of the conclusions DEPENDENT upon the empirical reality of the TERMS (subjects/predicates) used to represent something real.

For instance, you can use the logic alone to create constants about reality. The essence of this lies within physics as 'laws' and to the fact that those logicians proposing this methodology to prevent religious or emotional assumptions about reasoning itself from interfering. Certainly if you are not religious, reality HAS to have evolved from nothing 'constant' or special except for something about the lawmaking capacity of Totality regarding universal inclusion of everything. So they divided a distinction between synthetic human imposition of meaning about the content or how that content connects so as to restrict what is left over a able to be 'analyzed' in a way that doesn't even need validating except for the simplest most common things agreed to in a statement but still sufficiently complete. Thus, "Cats can be pets", is not analytic the way it is stated. Rather, you would restate it like, "(Pets) are (things that include the possibility of being cats)" is what is a form sought out that might be analyzed. It is analyzed by turning each term term into symbols and so you get the form, "Some X are Y" or, ignoring the quanitiy for simpler propositions, "X is contained in Y".

Then, if you can prove that the form is real about reality, then all that is dependent upon the statement to be true as a whole is the relationship's real nature to Y. You don't need nor require dealing with whether pets nor the thnig that include the possibility of being cats is itself real, but that IF this relationship is true by nature, the logic itself by form is 'true' most universally. This sets the stage to be able to prove reality from the simplest of assumed constants, most preferably sought, nothing itself (like the empty set within most set theories.

[Age]

But, 'it does not matter what character is used', just as long as the character is already understood, correct?

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, Age, but it seems like a fair question, and I'll answer what I think you are probably asking.

A symbol, in language, can be any arbitrary mark or vocalization, even a gesture (sign language and semaphor, for example), that stands for or represents a concept. The sign or symbol, itself, has no meaning. A concept is an identification of some existent. An existent is anything that is, an entity, an event, an attribute, a relationship, whether material (rocks, houses, animals, planets) or epistemological (history, mathematics, science, fiction). What a concept identifies (the actual existents) is what the concept means.

And what the 'concept' itself means is relative to the observer. This is because absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

So, when you say, "it does not matter what character is used, just as long as the character is already understood," is only true so long as by, "already understood," means "the actual concept the character represents is known."

Remember that the 'actual concept' the character represents can only be truly known with and through clarification. Obviously, for what you know is not what "another" knows.

Since, the meaning of a concept is the actual existents it identifies, no character, symbol, or sign means anything unless it represent a concept that means actual existents.

Just as long as this is what the human being, who makes things mean things, makes that the meaning of a concept.

Obviously, if a human being makes the meaning of a 'concept' something other than the actual existents it identifies, then the meaning of a 'concept', to them, is different from the meaning of a 'concept', to you. And, if it is impossible for a human being to make the meaning of a 'concept' other than the actual existents it identifies, then this is just an unequivocal fact, which obviously cannot be refuted.

All by itself, no symbol means anything.

Well this is already very obvious.

I just wrote what I did because I was just writing what you wrote, just using different characters. See, 'it does not matter what character is used', just as long as the character is already understood. The characters you used were already understood, by some. So, I just repeated what you wrote, just using different characters, to show and prove that 'it does not matter what character is used' or 'tidak masalah karakter apa yang digunakan' just as long as the character is already understood', which obviously it was understood for you to respond, but you just did not seem to fully understand what the characters c-o-r-r-e-c-t meant, or were used for.

If that's not clear, please feel free to question further.

You answer is clear. But, your answer shows, to me anyway, that what you were assuming I was "probably asking" is completely wrong.

My question was asking for nothing more than what the question itself asks for, that is; a yes or a no answer.