On 9/26/2011 7:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    On 9/26/2011 11:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


    On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King
    <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

        snip
        Jason,

            I really would like to understand how it is that the
        truth valuation of a proposition is not dependent on our
        knowledge of it can be used to affirm the meaning of the
        referent of that proposition independent of us?


    That sentence was hard to parse!  If I understand it correctly,
    you are asking how a truth, independent of our knowledge, can
    confer meaning to something without us?
    [SPK]
        Essentially, yes.



    Things unknown to anyone can have consequences which are
    eventually do make a difference to beings which are aware of the
    difference.  A comet colliding with the Earth and hitting a pond
    of unicellular organisms may have drastically altered the course
    of evolution on our planet.  That such a comet impact ocurred is
    a fact which is either true or false, despite it being
    independent of anyone's knowledge of it.  Yet it has perceptable
    results.

    [SPK]
        The web of causes and effects is an aspect of the material
    universe. I am taking that concept into consideration.


    Correspondingly, the existence of some mathematical truth (even
    if not comprehended by anyone) can have effects for observers, in
    fact, it might explain both the observers themselves and their
    experiences.
    [SPK]
        Slow down! "existence of some mathematical truth"??? Do you
    mean the truth value of some existing mathematical statement? That
    is what I mean in my question by the phrase "truth valuation of a
    proposition". Is a truth value something that exists or does not
    exist?


I am not sure what you mean by "exists" in this case so let me say this, the state of being true, or the state of being false, for the proposition in question, was settled before a human made a determination regarding that proposition.

[SPK]
Is the "state of being true" a physical state, like the "state of having 10 units of momentum"? Is there a "truth detector"? Are you sure that "state" and "true" are words that go together? AFAIK, true (or false) are values, like numbers. In fact logics can have truth values that range over any set of numbers. This puts truth valuations in the same category as numbers. No?


        How does the sentence "17 is prime is a true statement"
        confer implicit meaning to its referent?


    What is the referent in this case?  17?  And what do you mean by
    "meaning"?  17's primality is a fact of nature.  The statement's
    existence or non-existence, comprehension or non-comprehension
    makes no difference to 17, only what you could say we humans have
    discovered about 17.

    [SPK]
        Is the symbol 17 the same extant as the abstract number it
    refers to?


No, as I mentioned to Brent in a post the other day, we ought not confuse the label for the thing. Nor should we confuse our idea of a thing for the thing itself.
[SPK]
OK, does not this imply that there are (at least) two separate categories: Labels and Things? What relation might exist between these categories?

    Do you believe that symbols and what they represent are one and
    the same thing???


No, we can apply some simple rules to the symbols in certain way to learn things about the object in question.
[SPK]
What relation might exist between the "rules" of symbols and the "rules" of things?


    How does not the fact that many symbols can represent one and the
    same extant disprove this hypothesis? Is the word "tree" have a
    brownish trunk and greenish foliage?  What about the case where
    sets of symbols that have more than one possible referent?
    Consider the word FORD. Does it have wheels and a motor? What is
    the height of the water that one displaces when we might walk
    across it? There is a categorical difference between an object and
    its representations and the fact that one subobject of those
    categories exists is not proof that a subobject in another
    category has a given truth value. BTW, truth values are not
    confined to {True, False}.


For well-defined propositions regarding the numbers I think the values are confined to true or false.

Jason

--
[SPK]
Not in general, unless one is only going to allow only Boolean logics to exist. There have been proven to exist logics that have truth values that range over any set of numbers, not just {0,1}. Recall the requirement for a mathematical structure to exist: Self-consistency.

Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to