You'll have to forgive this bear of little brain, but i can't make any sense of this. How do we know that dogs exist? Can we rule out the possibility of an overnight canine pandemic that killed every dog on the planet via analytic statements? Not that I can see. The only way to determine this is via sense input. — EricH

Dogs exist as conceptual objects even if all of reality is a mere figment of the imagination.
My purpose is to provide the foundation such that Boolean True(Language L, String x) becomes computable.

On Stack Exchange the foundation of analytical truth is rejected specifically because it is unpopular. Once we have the actual foundation of analytical truth then Boolean True(L, x) becomes computable.

In theory is can process any knowledge known to humankind that can be encoded as text strings.
— PL Olcott
How is it different from ChatGPT? — Corvus

ChatGPT is the huge breakthrough that makes populating the Cyc project's
knowledge ontology feasible. They spent about 1000 labor years manually
encoding the current teeny tiny fraction of knowledge known as common sense.
This took them 40 calendar years since 1984.

Getting from Generative AI to Trustworthy AI: What LLMs might learn from Cyc

Does it handle / process abstract concepts such as God, souls, freedom or immortality? — Corvus

In theory is can process any knowledge known to humankind that can be encoded as text strings.

The original version of CycL was a frame language, but the modern version is not. Rather, it is a declarative language based on classical first-order logic, with extensions for modal operators and higher order quantification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CycL

In information science, an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all domains of discourse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

I have understood that beliefs are a very terrible measure measure of knowledge when I was 16, 56 years ago. When I was 16 I saw this as the woeful fallibility of humanity to distinguish facts from opinions. Doug Lenat's approach is correct for the entire body of {analytical knowledge} meaning known truths that can be expressed using language.

I don't currently know how to handle contentious knowledge.

So how do the users know which is which? Do they have to type in the unique GUID into the system to get the correct definition they want?

Or can the Cyc project know which is the right one the user wants to know? How does it do that?
Some users could call cat palm as just "cat", and some may have a cat called "cat palm". — Corvus

Once a system like Cyc acquires all of the general knowledge of the world then it can disambiguate these things exactly as well as the best human experts. If there is no context to disambiguate it then it would do the same thing that a human would do and tentatively hypothesize one of them until this hypothesis is proven false.

Are they wrong in virtue of the fact that a bologna sandwich was never elected to Congress or are they wrong in virtue of the fact that the database hasn't included that as an axiom? — Count Timothy von Icarus

The database is currently hypothetical as merely the set of finite strings that encode semantic truth.

Ok, so you can have your magic database, and I will make my own. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The set of finites strings that encode semantic truth is neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Might it be that yours is correct because it is true in virtue of how the proposition relates to states of affairs and not the meaning ascribed to some code? — Count Timothy von Icarus

"this sentenced has words" is semantic meaning encoded in symbols.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Communication_Process.png

"state of affairs" includes some expressions that are not Analytic(Olcott).

Cat is animal.
Cat is plant.

But after the update, the system has two expressions for the same word cat, which are contradictory.

Not at all the system rejects the incorrect use of {Cat} as a type mismatch error or is able to determine from context which {Cat} is being referred to.

This is false. How do we know it is false? Not because "The US House of Representatives," fails to be synonymous with "has 572 members." — Count Timothy von Icarus

The system reads everything that anyone ever wrote and detects inconsistences. It knows to use the US constitution to determine the number of members of congress. It also understands all of the details of how the constitution is amended thus any purported amendments must have a complete audit trail.

Saying, "what if we collected all possible non-analytical truths, and then declared them true by axiom, that will turn them into analytical truths," is totally missing what an analytical truth is. — Count Timothy von Icarus

{Analytic}(Olcott) is intended to retain {proven completely true entirely on the basis of its meaning} and is free to override and supersede every other detail of the conventional meaning of {Analytic}.

It boils down to the fact that I am defining True(L, x) the way that it actually works and rejecting any and all misconceptions of this.

But our made up language could just as easily contain false axioms. How would we determine which is which? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true are from the current correct model of the actual world. If someone says that the current number of members of congress is {a stale bologna sandwich} then they are wrong.

What about the case where cat means a plant?
"What is a cat plant?
Chamaedorea Cataractarum, also known as a Cat Palm, is a small, bushy palm tree that is native to Southern Mexico and Central America. It's an easy-to-care-for houseplant with beautiful foliage!" - Google — Corvus

Cat is animal. Cat is plant. — Corvus

Referring to a "Cat Palm" as a "Cat" is a type mismatch error that can be overridden by a temporary idiomatic expression.

Just like the Cyc project each unique sense meaning has its own unique GUID
9824b3dc-7237-4b4b-9a71-fb788348bc9a for the living animal "Cat"
9f444cef-f49f-4aa8-89bf-248ee5976b92 for "Cat Palm"

Analytic knowledge is still limited in a sense that it doesn't add any new information to the knowledge. If you knew the meaning of cat, then you don't need the AI system to look at what it means. If you didn't know the meaning of cat, then you can look up a dictionary or google it.
Therefore, why do you need the AI analytic info system? — Corvus

At some point everyone must some how be told the semantic meanings of otherwise meaningless finite strings. That "cats are animals" is stipulated to be true, thus an axiom of natural language. The entire body of Analytical(Olcott) truth is comprised of axioms and expressions derived from axioms. The Prolog computer language has this same architecture of Facts and Rules.

Axiom is a proposition regarded as self-evidently true without proof.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Axiom.html

Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics

Analytic(Olcott) provides the provides the foundation to make True(L, x) computable thus refuting the Tarski Undefinability theorem. The current issue with LLM AI technology is that it has no way to tell the difference between truth and lies. This causes it to tell lies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)

And what of Yablo’s paradox? — Banno

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Yablo
It is the same as asking someone to count to infinity, invalid input.

Well, another problem would be that human experts tend to be continually learning, so the system you describe would seem to inevitably lag behind human expertise. — wonderer1

The system would be hooked up to reliable online sources of news and academic articles. This would make it "the world's leading expert at everything" especially because it could cross correlate between differing academic disciplines. My plan is to merely design the architectural infrastructure so that Boolean True(L, x) could be eventually fully implemented.

So far I can't even find hardly any people that are totally sure that the Liar Paradox: "This sentence is not true" is simply not a truth bearer.

My whole point in this thread is to establish a definition of {Analytic} truth that forms the basic foundation of Boolean True(L, x).

Sounds like a wildly unrealistic goal to me. — wonderer1

The first step of this is to correctly refute the Tarski undefinability theorem. With the new LLM AI technology encoding knowledge of the world becomes feasible. It really needs Boolean True(L,x) to be computable to stop it from telling lies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)

My goal is (1) to make Boolean True(x) computable. (2) This requires that a machine has an understanding of the world at least equal to the best human experts in every field. Currently humans do not have as much as a good guess between truth and well crafted lies.

For, "cats are a type of sailboat" could no doubt be defined as an "analytical truth," by fiat and entered into a database, but this would not make it true that cats are a type of sailboat.
— Count Timothy von Icarus

Cats are my favorite kind of sailboat, because they are fast. — wonderer1

The database that I referred to has always been the the set of general knowledge of the current actual world that can be expressed using language. For example it is true that "cats are animals" thus disagreement is simply incorrect.

How about "There is a cat or there is not a cat in my living room right now." ? Is this sentence analytic or not? — Corvus

Every expression of language that can be verified as true or false entirely on the basis of textual analysis is Analytic(Olcott), thus your expression is Analytic(Olcott).

You're fundementally misunderstanding what the distinction is and why it is important. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Analytic(Olcott) is a stipulative definition that retains the essence of the original {proven completely true or false entirely on the basis of its meaning} and adds that this proof must be entirely contained within expressions of language.

This stipulative definition specifies that "Cats are animals." <is> Analytic(Olcott) and "There is a cat in my living room right now." <is not> Analytic(Olcott). We finally have an unequivocal criterion measure where disagreement is simply incorrect.

In other words when-so-ever the truth of an expression of language S can be determined by analyzing the relation of S to other expressions of language then S is Analytic(Olcott).

A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. When the term already exists, this definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary (lexical) definition of the term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

Ah, so when the Roman capital moves to Milan people learn about this to memorize it... how exactly? How exactly did people come to memorize the fact that Senator Obama has become President Obama? Your solution involves totally ignoring how facts are actually know and you still haven't explain why/how false axioms wouldn't be added. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You are disagreeing that there can be a correct model of the world because you don't understand
how it is updated? How did humans find out that Obama is no longer president?

Hume's Fork is about how we come to know truths. The distinction is about how people can come to know things. A magical inviolable database where all true statements exist and no false ones sort of misses the point of debate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The only way that people learn that expressions of language are true is that they are told or they are derived from expressions of language they they are told are true. Without the infrastructure of the conventions of language they could not possibly know that "dogs bark". They would hear "noise" not even knowing that it is called "noise".

But it seems like the point stands, how does one differentiate between true and false axioms such as: "Michelle is the tallest woman in the room," — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Michelle is the tallest woman in the room" is not analytic because it requires sense data from the sense organs to verify that {Michelle is in the room}.

The way that it currently works for humans is that all of the facts of the world are stipulated as axioms. When we look up: "Is Paris the capital of the planet Mars"? We find that it is neither an axiom nor derived from axioms thus it is not true.

No one figures out that "Paris is the capitol of France". No one experiences the physical sensation that "Paris is the capitol of France". They merely memorize that "Paris is the capitol of France" is true.

My ultimate purpose of redefining {analytic} is to abolish undecidability such as this:
Since "This sentence is NOT true." is not an axiom and cannot be derived from axioms thus we correctly determine that it is not true, yet this does not make it false.

No, "cats are animals," is verified by experience. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That is not true. No amount of experience tells us that "cats are animals" means "los gatos son animales"(Spanish) which means "猫是动物"(Chinese).

Isn't it an objection to say that the definitions of the terms in play are arbitrary and not tied to reality? Or more to what I think Quine's point was, you would have to do a lot of empirical work to figure out what definitions to put into your database. That is, they aren't actually analytical truths because what you have put into the database has been determined not by definitions, but by empirical inquiry. — Count Timothy von Icarus

With my redefinition of the {analytic} side of the analytic/synthetic distinction any and all knowledge
that can be completely verified as true entirely on the basis of text <is> stipulated to be analytic.

That "cats are animals" is verified as true on the basis of the axiom {cats are animals}.
The only way that the finite string "cats are animals" is associated with the semantic
meaning {cats are animals} is that this is stipulated. If you ask a person that only speaks
Chinese "are cats animals?" they will say: "No speak English" (in Chinese).

I am trying to specify a definition of the term {analytic expression of language} that matches the spirit of the conventional definition {verified as true entirely on the basis of its meaning} that simultaneously overcomes any objection that anyone can possibly have.

What can the system tell us about the cat next door? The grey coloured cat keeps coming into our garden looking for something often. — Corvus

The sum total of all of the general knowledge of the world is finite.
Every detail about every atom of the cat next door's location at
every point in time is infinite.

The relevant details of the cat next door could be stored in a temporary
discourse ontology.

Not sure how the AI could know anything about the world, if they are locked up in the analytic cave. Doesn't sound very convincing in the system operandi. — Corvus

It is told that {cats} <are> {animals} and billions of other things about {cats}. Most of these other things are inherited from the {animal} element of the knowledge ontology tree of knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

What if {cats} was someone's nick name, or name of a rock band? They are also cats too, no? In that case , the AI would fail to tell the truth, wouldn't it? — Corvus

As I told you before, because I have carefully studied all of these things in my mind for five years full-time I really can address and possible objection that anyone (including Quine) can possibly have. {cats} means the unique concept of the living animal and has an associated 128-bit GUID integer. Any other usage has its own different 12-bit GUID integer. "cats" may or may not be associated with {cats}.

You have not understood Quine. I don't think you have understood the analytic/synthetic distinction. And I don't think that on this topic you are "open to learning", as teachers sometimes say. You have produced the answer without first making sense of the question - something you already did in your previous threads. — Banno

I have spent five full time years carefully thinking through how an analytic distinction could over-ride, replace and supersede the current one such that this new one has the full spirit of the original {true entirely on the basis of its meaning} yet would be 100% unequivocal.

The set of expressions of language that can be verified as completely true (or false) entirely on the basis of other expressions of language that are stipulated to be true meets this unequivocal requirement.

Most people have a problem with the {stipulated to be true part} because they have no idea how humans know that "cats are animals" is true, so they simply disbelieve what I say entirely on the basis of their own ignorance.

Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics

But then all the semantic meaning of the word bachelor isn't derived from (Male(x) & Adult(x) & ~Married(x)). If it were, you wouldn't need multiple unique integers to encode its multiple distinct meanings. — Count Timothy von Icarus

{Male, Adult and Married} have their own unique GUIDs.

But how would it deal with analogical predication? E.g. "Jake is a snake," meaning "Jake is slippery and devious." — Count Timothy von Icarus

We can assign sets of meanings to arbitrary finite strings idiomatically.

So, a bachelor's degree is equivalent to an "unmarried man's degree?" But then how do married men and women have bachelor's degrees? It seems like the semantic meaning of the term bachelor is modified by the context here. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The Cyc project addresses this by providing a unique 128-bit integer (GUID) for each unique sense meaning in the world. 6ae8d0b5-be3e-4f0d-aaea-d37395ba4207 for {unmarried male adult} and
23abe8b5-4df1-4d63-a3ca-b436472a6e0e for a {bachelors degree} cannot be mistaken for the same thing.

No I cannot.
— PL Olcott

Yeah, didn't think so. — Banno

When one definition simultaneously addresses every possible objection
then it also addresses any and all objections that Quine could possibly
have. I updated my OP to reflect this.

That Quine could not possibly understand that the term Bachelor(x) derives all of its semantic meaning from (Male(x) & Adult(x) & ~Married(x)) seems so ridiculous that accusing Quine of simply lying seems reasonably plausible. This definition is clearly acyclic.

How does your system deal with the same words of the different meanings in the real world identification?
For example, a dog is an animal. But you also get a dog which has the following meanings. — Corvus

The Cyc Project uses 128-bit GUID integers to identify unique sense meanings.

Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world works. Hoping to capture common sense knowledge, Cyc focuses on implicit knowledge that other AI platforms may take for granted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc

Isn't axiomatic model for formalizing various branches of mathematical theory, including geometry, algebra, set theory? Applying that concept to linguistic topic sounds incorrect. — Corvus

An axiom is a proposition regarded as self-evidently true without proof.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Axiom.html

An axiomatic model of the world is the only way that an AI mind can be created that is the functional equivalent to a human mind. It must be told that {cats} <are> {animals}.

Analytic sentences are known to be superfluous for the meanings are already in the sentence, and it is just repeating what is in it. — Corvus

That is not the definition that I provided. I redefined {analytic} to eliminate all equivocation.

An analytic expression of language can be totally proved true or false entirely on the basis of other expressions of language. — PL Olcott

That dogs exist is ambiguous. It doesn't say where and when that dogs exist. — Corvus

The class {dog} is stipulated to be a subset of the class {animal}. The other details about {dogs} and {animals} are referenced in the axiomatic model of the actual world knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy.

In information science, an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all domains of discourse. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

That dogs exist is analytic is ambiguous in another way that, it sounds like you are claiming that that dogs are analytic. — Corvus

The formal semantic class {dogs} is a node in the above inheritance hierarchy.

Yeah, didn't think so. — Banno

I find that categorically exhaustive reasoning finds the optimal answer in minimal steps. Try bringing up any specific objection and I will address it. I have been using {categorically exhaustive reasoning} for two decades now it is quite effective.

My definition unequivocally divides analytic from synthetic. I have been going over it again and again for many years. It was reverse-engineered on the basis of several undecidable decision problems, the key one being the Tarski Undefinability Theorem.

Now, can you set out the objections raised by Quine, and how it is that you address them? — Banno

No I cannot. Once I understood that he didn't understand that bachelors are unmarried I wrote him off as a nitwit. Do you know of any objections that are not already addressed by my definition?

I am assuming that a correct model of the actual world already exists in formalized natural language. How does anyone know that {dogs} <are> {animals} ? It is an axiom in this model of the world.

An axiom is a proposition regarded as self-evidently true without proof.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Axiom.html

Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics

This stipulates the semantic meaning of expressions of language by assigning semantic meaning to otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.

What are his objections, specifically, and how does your account address them? — Banno

When I address every possible objection that anyone can possibly have I have addressed his objections.

An analytic expression of language can be totally proved true or false entirely on the basis of other expressions of language.

That {dogs} <are> {animals} is proven true entirely on the basis of the meaning of those terms as expressed in other expressions of language. As far as I can tell my definition of analytical is perfectly unequivocal. That Quine could not begin to understand that the term Bachelor(x) is defined in terms of Male(x) & Adult(x) & ~Married(x) proved to me that he was mostly clueless.

So what were his objections? The ones you refer to in the title of this thread? — Banno

Two Dogmas of Empiricism Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://michaelreno.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/QuineTwoDogmas.pdf

So the objections that you point to in the title of this thread - what exactly are they? — Banno

My approach was to categorically address every possible objection that anyone could ever have thus addressing any objection that Quine had. Since Quine is the thought leader of the majority view I referred to his view. I read his paper and he extensively elaborated over a hundred times that he did not understand how we could know that bachelors are unmarried.

There are synthetic facts, too. So what is it that Quine did not understand? — Banno

I don't know but he convinced a majority of philosophers that the analytic / synthetic distinction is problematic. He seemed to think that nothing about anything can be known without physical experience. He might not have known enough math to be challenged to provide the physical experience of the square root of two.

If there is a small black dog in my living room then this is a true fact.