Ron,
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.
Tuukka:
If the Poincare conjecture's truth value had been deemed completely
uninteresting before it had already been solved, it would have never
been solved.
What is intelligible varies from person to person. This is intelligible
to me. That should not be a problem for you, since you have the option
to ignore this.
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.
Tuukka:
Incorrect. Nonrelativizably used predicates cannot be proven to have, or
to not have, any properties. Hence, they may neither (provably) have nor
not have the property of being an abstract noun. Nonrelativizability
itself is not a property of a predicate, but a property of the way in
which a predicate is used.
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.
Tuukka:
Yes, they have to be, if they want to understand what I'm saying. Don't
you tell me to dumb myself down. If everyone did that, it wouldn't be a
pretty sight.
-Tuukka
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
