On 12/3/2018 9:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
But that is close to the solipsist move. The fact that we cannot
define truth does not entail that some notion of truth does not
make sense. In particular, Peano arithmetic can already define an
infinity of approximation of truth, namely sigma_i and pi_i truth
(the truth of the sentences will a finite and fixed number of
quantifier, as opposed to finite sentences with an arbitrary
finite number of quantifier).
We can invoke truth, but we can develop meta-discourse relating
truth to theories, like we cannot invoke our own consciousness
does not prevent us to try theories about it.
It is a bit like “I cannot study my own brain”, but I can still
infer some theories of my brain by looking at the brain of others
and then assuming that I am not different.
So are do these theories produce true or false propositions?
Can you give an example of "truth in the programming" and how it differs
from the mathematical idea of true and the correspondence theory of truth?
A different perspective (!) of "truth" comes from - vs. PA (Peano
arithmetic) - *PLT* (programming language theory - the legacy to a
large extent of John C. Reynolds
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Reynolds - who was originally
a theoretical physicist ], and sort of in parallel the whole
type-theory gang). Rather than an external "god-like" notion of truth,
truth is in the programming.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.