> Ron: > Any useful predicate is simple, and economical in explanation.
Tuukka: Not true. The properties of the predicate "the truth value of the Goldbach conjecture" are extremely complicated, yet resolving it would be of some importance. Basically, if what you said here were true, any mathematics above high school level would be "not useful". Perhaps you are suggesting, that philosophy should be simple. If this is too complicated for you, it's not for you. Ron: Well, one has to ask how useful is the truth value of unresolved conjecture. It's meaning is all in the explanation of its function. Philosophy should be intelligible as should predication. > Ron: > Analyzing the traditionally rationalist term of "everything that exists" or > "God" or "reality" or any abstract > noun, the discussion is aided by revisiting the monist/pluralist or the > rationalist/empiricist or the "one/many" > inquires of the ancient Greeks. The Socratic dialogs of Plato and Aristotle's > "metaphysics" are a great place to start to gain a more intelligible hold on > the issue you raise. Tuukka: You must have misunderstood the issue. By saying that a predicate is not useful unless it's simple you are saying mathematic research is not useful. You probably didn't mean -that-. Ron: What I did mean to say is that the most meaningful predicates, the ones we believe to know best are what is most intelligible. It is what we mean when we say that something is "true". > > Ron adds: > If a "nonrelativizably used predicate" is essentially the same as what is > known grammatically as an "abstract noun" > then you are simply trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist with > a kind of overcomplicated term > that does not offer a better, more simplified, easily understandable > explanation. Tuukka: A predicate is not the same thing as an abstract noun. They are not required to be abstract. "Concept" would be a more correct intuitively appealing designation. Ron: No but a "nonrelativizably used" predicate is. A relativizably used predicate is a concrete noun. I'm just not sure how the term relativizably lends greater explanitory power. Tukka: I don't insist on using unappealing language. My work may be regarded as a work in progress, and as such, names of things can be changed. But I am currently using the name "nonrelativizably used predicate", because it is the technically correct name for that thing, from a mathematical point of view. Feel free to suggest a better name for more casual use! Not everyone is an analytic philosopher. Ron: Well its an "abstract noun" from a Grammatical point of view and from a historical philosophic perspective and as just a basic simple understanding. No not everyone is an analytic philosopher.nor should they have to be to understand what you are saying. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
