Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

[PeteOlcott]

I have proved that the otherwise totally meaningless finite string: "bachelor" can have its semantic meaning defined in terms of otherwise totally meaningless finite strings without requiring the cycles that this summation of Quine suggested would be required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogma ... ircularity

Instead of acknowledging that I am correct you always seem to nitpick at one extraneous point or another.

How can I tell you that you are correct when i am trying to get it through your thick skull that you are wrong!

All you are saying is that the otherwise totally meaningless finite string "True" can simply be defined by the otherwise totally meaningless finite string "False". So instead of having one meaningless string , now you have two meaningless strings. But why stop there? If you can have two meaningless strings, why not infinitely many?

Congratulations. You have re-invented meaningless.

Not at all. I use truth conditional semantics to map the infinite set of finite strings
representing the subset of the body of analytical knowledge to the finite string: "true",
thus assigning truth conditional semantics to these finite strings.

[Skepdick]

Not at all. I use truth conditional semantics to map the infinite set of finite strings
representing the subset of the body of analytical knowledge to the finite string: "true",
thus assigning truth conditional semantics to these finite strings.

You are like a stuck record player.

You are "using" the very semantics you are trying to prove. Before you have proved them.

That you don't understand Gödel is fucking obvious. That you don't want to understand Gödel has become painfully obvious too.

[PeteOlcott]

Not at all. I use truth conditional semantics to map the infinite set of finite strings
representing the subset of the body of analytical knowledge to the finite string: "true",
thus assigning truth conditional semantics to these finite strings.

You are like a stuck record player.

You are "using" the very semantics you are trying to prove. Before you have proved them.

That you don't understand Gödel is fucking obvious. That you don't want to understand Gödel has become painfully obvious too.

This is the very hard part:
Once all of the otherwise meaningless finite strings have been defined in terms of each other a human degree of comprehension of the semantic meaning of these finite strings will have been fully encoded as these inter-relationships.

Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

[Skepdick]

Once all of the otherwise meaningless string have been defined in terms of each other a human degree of comprehension of the semantic meaning of these finite strings will have been fully encoded as these inter-relationships.

So you've only taken care of encoding?!?!? What about decoding?

Now I have to learn to speak YOUR dumb-ass language just to query the database? Fuck off!
You've already wasted my time making me learn Prolog because you are too lazy to use something more widely adopted.

I can already query Google in English. Why would I use your system?

[PeteOlcott]

Once all of the otherwise meaningless string have been defined in terms of each other a human degree of comprehension of the semantic meaning of these finite strings will have been fully encoded as these inter-relationships.

So you've only taken care of encoding?!?!? What about decoding?

Now I have to learn to speak YOUR dumb-ass language just to query the database? Fuck off!

I can already query Google in English. Why would I use your system?

Such a system would be a fully functional human mind capable of doing anything that a human mind can do.

[Skepdick]

Such a system would be a fully functional human mind capable of doing anything that a human mind can do.

It will? All you've done is populated a database. There's no logic. What do you DO with all that data? For starters - it doesn't even speak English!

You've re-invented expert systems.

Pete. You are a fucking retard. Here is why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_sy ... advantages

The trivial example of what a human mind can do but your system can't do is thus: the process of acquiring new, or modifying existing knowledge.

Learning.

[PeteOlcott]

Such a system would be a fully functional human mind capable of doing anything that a human mind can do.

It will? All you've done is populated a database. There's no logic. What do you DO with all that data?

You've re-invented expert systems.

Pete. You are a fucking retard. Here is why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_sy ... advantages

The trivial example of what a human mind can do but your system can't do is thus: the process of acquiring new, or modifying existing knowledge.

Learning.

It is no mere expert system. It would contain the entire set of knowledge that can be expressed using language as an exhaustively complete set of connected ideas.

The process of acquiring new knowledge would necessarily have to be the very first thing encoded within such as system.

[PeteOlcott]

Formal languages generally make actual self-reference inexpressible.

Bullshit.

Code: Select all

self = lambda n=0: self(n+1)

There. Expressed.

Code: Select all

def self(n=0):
  return self(n+1)

There. Expressed.

It looks like your lambda calculus (pseudo code?) would be infinitely recursive.
If it is and can be expressed in actual lambda calculus, or pure lambda calculus
this would an important be a new insight for me.

[Skepdick]

It looks like your lambda calculus (pseudo code?) would be infinitely recursive.

It's valid Python. Yes, it would be infinitely recursive IF you had infinite memory.
But I don't have infinite memory, so Python soon spits out an error: RecursionError: maximum recursion depth exceeded

The key point is that I have expressed it. And it has passed grammatical muster by the Python interpreter.

If it is and can be expressed in actual lambda calculus, or pure lambda calculus
this would an important be a new insight for me.

Yes. It can be. The key insight here is that infinite recursion cannot be expressed in any language which uses eager evaluation, because the language attempts to evaluate all expressions as soon they are encountered.

[Skepdick]

It is no mere expert system. It would contain the entire set of knowledge that can be expressed using language as an exhaustively complete set of connected ideas.

Even if that were the case, you have not specified what your system has to DO with that "knowledge".

A database doesn't DO anything other than answer queries. What you DO with the answer is the missing bit in your system.

[PeteOlcott]

It is no mere expert system. It would contain the entire set of knowledge that can be expressed using language as an exhaustively complete set of connected ideas.

Even if that were the case, you have not specified what your system has to DO with that "knowledge".

A database doesn't DO anything other than answer queries. What you DO with the answer is the missing bit in your system.

Once you understand its architecture you will see that In such a system reasoning is hardly more than simply tree walking.

At least now we made it over the huge hurdle of the gist of the idea that knowledge can actually
be encoded as the inter-relationships between otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.

That by itself was a very huge breakthrough in communication. Everything else seems downhill from there.

[Skepdick]

Once you understand its architecture you will see that In such a system reasoning is hardly more than simply tree walking.

Pete, before you can "tree walk" (which is a fancy word for "search") - you need to know what you are looking for and why.

What good is a database if you aren't going to ask it any questions?

At least now we made it over the huge hurdle of the gist of the idea that knowledge can actually
be encoded as the inter-relationships between otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.

That by itself was a very huge breakthrough in communication. Everything else seems downhill from there.

Communication? Lol!

Pete. Lambda calculus is an equational theory. It is 100% tautological. Said differently - it contains zero bits of information.
This is true for ALL recursively-enumerable systems. Everything that is true is an axiomatic truism - and therefore, useless in practice.

If you want to even begin talking about information you need asymmetry. Inequalities.

You need non-determinism.

I really need to ask you a serious question: have you spent a day in your life working on a real-world computation system, or are you a pure theoretician? Because you really seem to be 50-60 years behind the times. Everything that you are talking about (and more, much MUCH more) is handled by any modern-day relational database.

[PeteOlcott]

Once you understand its architecture you will see that In such a system reasoning is hardly more than simply tree walking.

Pete, before you can "tree walk" (which is a fancy word for "search") - you need to know what you are looking for and why.

Do you understand that this is possible:
Once all of the otherwise meaningless strings have been defined in terms of each other a human degree of comprehension of the semantic meaning of these finite strings will have been fully encoded as these inter-relationships.

[Skepdick]

Do you understand that this is possible:
Once all of the otherwise meaningless strings have been defined in terms of each other a human degree of comprehension of the semantic meaning of these finite strings will have been fully encoded as these inter-relationships.

Pete, you can't be this stupid.

Once all the relationships between meaningless strings have been captured, you will then have meaningless relations between meaningless strings.

It'll make for a great visualisation, and that's about it.

[PeteOlcott]

Do you understand that this is possible:
Once all of the otherwise meaningless strings have been defined in terms of each other a human degree of comprehension of the semantic meaning of these finite strings will have been fully encoded as these inter-relationships.

Pete, you can't be this stupid.

Once all the relationships between meaningless strings have been captured, all you have is meaningless relations between meaningless strings.

Can you understand this part?

For the whole body of knowledge that can be fully expressed using language: **
The only way that people know the meaning of words is that these words are defined using other words.

The only aspects of knowledge left out are first-hand physical sensations from the sense organs.