John F, Steven,List

> On Apr 14, 2018, at 3:19 PM, John F Sowa <> 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.


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…

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 

> is based on
> a disciplined special-purpose subset of natural language.
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'.
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 
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.



PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at .

Reply via email to