So why do you think the gullible fools are going to believe your algorithm?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.
Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
-
- Posts: 1556
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
It depends on how nutty they are. Gullible fools currently don't believe in theSkepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:53 pmSo why do you think the gullible fools are going to believe your algorithm?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.
mathematics of exponential growth rates. There is nothing we can do about
them except find ways to silence them.
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
So, your "algorithm" is not going to solve the problem.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.
-
- Posts: 1556
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neuma ... set_theorySkepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:53 pmPete, what is the semantic of a "thing" ?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.
It might be something like the universal proper class.
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
No. What is the semantic of a "thing" within your system?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.
What finite strings is it related to?
-
- Posts: 1556
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Do you understand that anything and everything is a thing?Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:02 pmNo. What is the semantic of a "thing" within your system?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.
What finite strings is it related to?
It would be the universal set from set theory if set theory did not stupidly allow a set to be a member of itself.
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
It doesn't matter if I understand it - you are trying to make your algorithm understand it.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.
Explain to your algorithm the semantics of a "thing".
-
- Posts: 1556
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
It just knows that it is the base class of these two mutually exclusive classes:Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:43 pmIt doesn't matter if I understand it - you are trying to make your algorithm understand it.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.
Explain to your algorithm the semantics of a "thing".
Physically_Existing, Conceptually_Existing.
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Quit stalling.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1556
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
As with the whole system the meaning must be build up from meaning postulates.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 11:00 pmQuit stalling.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.
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.
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.
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Yes! So the finite string {Thing} is meaningless.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.
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.
But "thing" is your root node?!?!?! "Thing" is your foundation.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".
If your foundation is meaningless, then so is everything you build on top of it!
-
- Posts: 1556
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
The root node needs no English description to have all of its essentialSkepdick wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 12:38 pmYes! So the finite string {Thing} is meaningless.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.
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.
But "thing" is your root node?!?!?! "Thing" is your foundation.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".
If your foundation is meaningless, then so is everything you build on top of it!
meaning stipulated by its relation to other finite strings.
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Pete, what does the meaningless finite string "THING" mean if it's related to the finite strings "kjdhqkjhdkjqwhdk", "jadhgfjkfhahgdfjhgdfjkg" "uhidhgiuhzgiuhdroiudhrt" and "zbcjkzgyjsgfoziusgefoiszdht" ?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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1556
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
THING is not a meaningless string, it is the root of the tree of Analytical_Knowledge.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 6:04 pmPete, what does the meaningless finite string "THING" mean if it's related to the finite strings "kjdhqkjhdkjqwhdk", "jadhgfjkfhahgdfjhgdfjkg" "uhidhgiuhzgiuhdroiudhrt" and "zbcjkzgyjsgfoziusgefoiszdht" ?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.
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.
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
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
^^^^ THAT is all gibberish. You said that the meaning of "thing" is....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.
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."PeteOlcott wrote: stipulated by its relation to other finite strings.
Make up your mind.
Which language is "this" language? You keep switching between English and some formal gibberish.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))
Choose a language and stick to it.
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.