John F, Steven,List > On Apr 14, 2018, at 3:19 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > On 4/14/2018 12:57 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: >> If logic is actually universal its universality is not served by locking its >> meanings in mathematical symbols and abbreviations. Universality is achieved >> fallibly by the use of words to form hypotheses and then by scientific >> parsing of the truth or falsity of a hypothesis, to determine a fallible but >> consequential truth. > > I very strongly agree. > > The point I make is that language is *not* based on logic.
JLRC This may true if the author decides not to a logical language. The choice here at the discretion of the author. Very few author’s choose to use common spoken language formally. Thus, Tarsi’s notion of meta-languages which was used by Malatesta to specify the meanings of terms in different disciplines. (I have written on this subject recently in the online journal, Information.) > Instead, > every artificial language, which includes all the artificial notations > of mathematics, logic, chemistry, computer programming… JLRC I find this phrase to be very confusing, John. In today’s terminology, Symbol systems are not the same as “artificial notations”, but most formal notations are artificial symbols created by humans to express human thought or intent or meaning. Secondly, a critical distinction is whether or not the terms originate within a discipline and flow into the spoken language with time, or incorporated into a different technical language or otherwise. A PARTICULARLY INTERESTING CASE IS “DNA”. > is based on > a disciplined special-purpose subset of natural language. > JLRC: This is a tricky statement in that the creation of new terms is often from outside of the standard spoken language OF THE PUBLIC. The meaning of new terms is often first acquired in the meta-language and slowly abused until it acquires some sort of public face. (One of the regular posters to this List-serve is particular keen on abusing technical terminology, re-shaping it beyond recognition or reason.) > For example, "2 + 2 = 4" is an abbreviation for "Two and two is four." > The symbol '+' is a simplified '&', which is a way of writing 'et'. JLRC Yes, one can use the notation of standard arithmetic such that this deployment of the symbol “+” is logically exact. BUT, THIS IS ONLY ONE POSSIBILITY, as you are well aware. Units must be defined! The meaning of the “+” sign / symbol varies with the purpose of author and the logical notation (system system) the author is communicating with. Take genetic symbols as examples Secondly, the same term have different meanings in different meta-languages. This problem is particularly acute when the meta-languages are concatenated together with syzygies / sublations. This is often necessary in relational meta-languages, such as physics and geology or molecular biology and medicine. Or, viewed from Tarski’s theory, the number of possible signatures for a meta-language is very large. I have sought passages in CSP communications that could possibly represent the notion of “signature” without success. I wonder if anyone else has explored this topic? Just some thoughts of possible interest to some readers. Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .