Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:29 am There is a loophole in the halting problem proofs that no one ever noticed before.
Whether or not a universal halt decider can be created does not actually depend
on deciding whether the Liar Paradox is true or false.
There is no loophole in the halting problem. The arrow of time/entropy is your master.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:56 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:29 am There is a loophole in the halting problem proofs that no one ever noticed before.
Whether or not a universal halt decider can be created does not actually depend
on deciding whether the Liar Paradox is true or false.
There is no loophole in the halting problem. The arrow of time/entropy is your master.
You mistake your own ignorance for the non existence of knowledge. There is a loophole.
Your next sentence is gibberish.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:54 pm You mistake your own ignorance for the non existence of knowledge. There is a loophole.
I recognise my ignorance for what it is. You mistake your ignorance for knowledge.
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:54 pm Your next sentence is gibberish.
It's only physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by PeteOlcott »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:21 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:54 pm You mistake your own ignorance for the non existence of knowledge. There is a loophole.
I recognise my ignorance as ignorance. You mistake your ignorance for knowledge...
PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:54 pm Your next sentence is gibberish.
It's only physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
Physics has nothing to do with semantic logical entailment.
The first is purely empirical and the second is purely analytical.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:24 pm Physics has nothing to do with semantic logical entailment.
The first is purely empirical and the second is purely analytical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogma ... ircularity

All of analyticity is colourless reductionism. It reduces to meaninglessness, not semantic truth.
Post Reply