Too many messages. I cannot read them all.
Is there a user group where these things are more organized? Hope so, else I'll have to block these messages. Stephen Paul King wrote: > Dear Hal, > > No, it is not the case that such questions "have no meaning". The "Liar > paradox", in its many forms and instantiations, convey a meaning. The > problem, IMHO, is in the assumption that the negation is "instantaneous". > For example, when we read the sentence "This sentence is false", we "take it > in" as a whole, it is meaningful as a whole, but we must realize that the > reading of the string of letters is not a process that is instantaneous or > "takes no time" to perform. Every physical process requires some non-zero > duration. > This is at the heart of my argument against proposals such as those of > Bruno Marchal. The "duration" required to instantiate a relation, even one > between a priori "existing" numbers can not be assumed to be zero and still > be a meaningful one. You are correct in saying that "the question has no > meaning", but only in the Ideal sense of ignoring the reality of duration, > even within Logic. > > Kindest regards, > > Stephen > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 11:51 AM > Subject: Re: Is reality unknowable? > > > It's also possible that the question, although seemingly made up of > > ordinary English language words used in a logical way, is actually > > incoherent. > > > > If I say, proposition P is both true and false, that is a sentence made > > up of English words, but it does not really make sense. I could then > > demand to know whether P is true or false, and whatever answer you give, > > I say that it is the opposite. If you say P is true, I point out that > > we just agreed that P was false, and vice versa. > > > > This is a trivial example because the paradox is so shallow, but the > > same thing is true for deeper paradoxes. The problem is not a failure > > of our reasoning tools, but rather that the question has no meaning. > > > > So you can't always take a sequence of words and expect to get an > > unambiguous and valid answer. You must always consider the possibility > > that your question is meaningless. The fact that people can't necessarily > > answer it does not imply that mathematics is unknowable or that there > > is no such thing as mathematical knowledge. There may be other reasons > > to think so, but it does not follow merely because a given sequence of > > words has no consistent analysis. > > > > Hal Finney > > > >
