fast
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2010 10:44 am
@Subjectivity9,
[QUOTE=Subjectivity9;116421]Sentences are a grammatical instrument for carrying thoughts.[/QUOTE]We are told that a proposition is what is expressed by most declarative sentences (and few interrogatory sentences), but just what is expressed by these sentences? You may find the question more pleasing if rather, I ask, what is it that we express with our use of such sentences? One thing in the running is meaning, and I think thoughts too are in the running--to explaining what it is that is expressed by sentences ... or if you prefer: what it is we express with our use of sentences.

[QUOTE]Sentences do not hold truth in themselves as any kind of essential truth within. [/QUOTE]That makes sense, but what I'm saying is that some propositions are true while some propositions are false. The question, then is, does that (at least in part) make it so that some sentences are therefore true and some sentences therefore false? Derivatively true, that is?

I think it's okay (and correct) to say of sentences that they are true when they express true propositions. Kennethamy agrees, I think. Emil disagrees. I'm not sure of anyone else's position.

[QUOTE]I'm not sure that personification of a sentence, even works outside of cartoon land.[/QUOTE]When I was first told that "words refer," I thought, how talented! And, I suppose you might think the same upon hearing someone say "sentences express." But, couldn't "sentences express meaning" be shorthand for (or at least translate into) "we express meaning with sentences?"

---------- Post added 01-03-2010 at 11:52 AM ----------

Fido;116638 wrote:
Words are primarily applied to the moral world,
What does that mean?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 12:14 am
@fast,
fast;116644 wrote:


---------- Post added 01-03-2010 at 11:52 AM ----------

What does that mean?

Glad you asked; and since the hour is late, let me be brief...Numbers seem ideally suited for the expression of physical reality, again, to such an extent that The pythagoreans thought numbers preceeded reality; but number is simply a concept...
Number is a single class of abstraction used to conceive of all physical, tangible, sensible reality... How can that be applied to people??? We can count our selves, measure ourselves, think of our selves as a form of reality and apply science to ourselves... But we, human beings have always conceived of ourselves spiritually, and this applies even to physical reality, and to all the spiritual forms which we find essential to our lives... Numbers, math, is logic... We do not concieve of ourselves logically...We cannot conceive of life, morality, virtue, freedom, justice, love, or hate logically; though it has not been for want of trying...So if I say moral reality, I am using the term rather as the word morale is applied to the military, to distinguish it from physic, which is the material condition of the army opposed to the spiritual condition...Moral reality is not reality in the sense of res, or thing.. Rather, all moral forms point to a certain meaning without being... Justice means even while it, justice, cannot be shown..Hope that helps....
Emil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 04:26 pm
@fast,
Quote:
I think it's okay (and correct) to say of sentences that they are true when they express true propositions. Kennethamy agrees, I think. Emil disagrees. I'm not sure of anyone else's position.


I don't disagree and I don't agree. I withhold belief so far.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 06:24 am
@fast,
Quote:

fast;116644 wrote:


When I was first told that "words refer," I thought, how talented! And, I suppose you might think the same upon hearing someone say "sentences express." But, couldn't "sentences express meaning" be shorthand for (or at least translate into) "we express meaning with sentences?"



Words are forms, abstractions; and as such, only as good as they tell truth...Truth, like words themselves are forms of relationship, and each is a part of a dynamic of communication...If it is not truth we tell, it is not communication, but mis-communication...And, it is never as simple as: Does the sentence tell truth...Truth is a form of relationship...Truth is a quality we share...So, truth is something both sides in any conversation work out with words rather than state, or accept simply...It is not done when people are done talking, but is a process indistinguishable from life itself..We need truth to survive...Those people who deny us truth deny us life...
---------- Post added 01-03-2010 at 11:52 AM ----------

What does that mean?
Now you are communicating.

A friend of mine said that he once learned to speak English from a Mexican...His first real job was installing lawn sprinkler systems, and one of his co-workers working a different line would some times ask him if he had a short piece, of pvc pipe... My pal would look in the hole he was standing in and see a lot of short pieces accumulated... Finally, he asked: How long??? And the Mexican would hold up his hands apart to indicate the approximate length...Truth is never as simple as a statement... It is always something people arrive at through a process...
0 Replies
 
LordScroop
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:00 am
@fast,
CAn you further explain you semantics by taking apart the Barbers tale, where he is the only barber in town and shaves only those who do not shave themselves. Yet the barber shaves himself ,so one the first count we have a paradox already. Then it goes on further and the second proposition cant be true either.

Does this fit in with what you are talking about ?

Mike.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:06 am
@LordScroop,
LordScroop;169911 wrote:
CAn you further explain you semantics by taking apart the Barbers tale, where he is the only barber in town and shaves only those who do not shave themselves. Yet the barber shaves himself ,so one the first count we have a paradox already. Then it goes on further and the second proposition cant be true either.

Does this fit in with what you are talking about ?

Mike.


The Barbershop paradox is dissolved (not solved) by the realization that there can be no such barber, since the supposition of such a barber who shaves only those who do not shave themselves is self-contradictory, since it implies a contradiction. What the paradox shows is that it is possible to suppose that something is possible that is, in fact, impossible. Another example that it is possible to believe contradictory things at once.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:26 am
@kennethamy,
Are you disagreing with the formulation of the Turing halting problem ?

How about the set of all sets who not contain themselves, can or cannot contain itself ?

---------- Post added 05-28-2010 at 08:30 AM ----------

Note: I disagree with some aspects on set theory, but I am interested in hearing it from you Ken...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:40 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;169927 wrote:
Are you disagreing with the formulation of the Turing halting problem ?

How about the set of all sets who not contain themselves, can or cannot contain itself ?

---------- Post added 05-28-2010 at 08:30 AM ----------

Note: I disagree with some aspects on set theory, but I am interested in hearing it from you Ken...


No idea what the halting problem is. What about the set paradox. What has it to do with the barbershop paradox save they are both paradoxes?
LordScroop
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:57 am
@fast,
But can you say all the sentences in the Barbers Paradox are true ?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:01 am
@LordScroop,
LordScroop;169941 wrote:
But can you say all the sentences in the Barbers Paradox are true ?


Since the supposition contains a contradiction they cannot all be true together. That is what a contradiction is. A logically inconsistent set of statements.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:10 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169933 wrote:
No idea what the halting problem is. What about the set paradox. What has it to do with the barbershop paradox save they are both paradoxes?
Russell's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:13 am
@Fil Albuquerque,


I do not know anything about the halting problem. I don't know what it is. I don't understand your question.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:15 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Russell-like paradoxes

As illustrated above for the Barber paradox, Russell's paradox is not hard to extend. Take:


Form the sentence:
The <V>er that <V>s all (and only those) who don't <V> themselves, Sometimes the "all" is replaced by "all <V>ers".
An example would be "paint":
The painter that paints all (and only those) that don't paint themselves. or "elect"
The elector (representative), that elects all that don't elect themselves. Paradoxes that fall in this scheme include:

  • The barber with "shave".
  • The original Russell's paradox with "contain": The container (Set) that contains all (containers) that don't contain themselves.
  • The Grelling-Nelson paradox with "describer": The describer (word) that describes all words, that don't describe themselves.
  • Richard's paradox with "denote": The denoter (number) that denotes all denoters (numbers) that don't denote themselves. (In this paradox, all descriptions of numbers get an assigned number. The term "that denotes all denoters (numbers) that don't denote themselves" is here called Richardian.)

[edit] Related paradoxes




Can you see now how they relate ???

---------- Post added 05-28-2010 at 09:19 AM ----------

kennethamy;169953 wrote:
I do not know anything about the halting problem. I don't know what it is. I don't understand your question.


The question is a formal problem on Set theory and obviously is does not came from me, plus I sincerly doubt you never heard from it before...

Once more, does the Set of all sets who do not contain themselves contains itself ???
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:22 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;169954 wrote:
Can you see now how they relate ???


I did not say there was no relation between them. But what difference does that make? We are talking about the barber shop paradox. Why need I say anything about the set paradox or the halting problem (whatever that may be)? To talk about X, why do I have to say anything about Y, unless X relates relevantly to Y in the context of the discussion? I said what I think is true about the barber shop paradox in the context of the OP. End of story. That is why you are so confused all the time. You never can tell what is relevant.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:23 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Informal presentation

Let us call a set "abnormal" if it is a member of itself, and "normal" otherwise. For example, take the set of all squares. That set is not itself a square, and therefore is not a member of the set of all squares. So it is "normal". On the other hand, if we take the complementary set that contains all non-squares, that set is itself not a square and so should be one of its own members. It is "abnormal".
Now we consider the set of all normal sets, R. Attempting to determine whether R is normal or abnormal is impossible: If R were a normal set, it would be contained in the set of normal sets (itself), and therefore be abnormal; and if it were abnormal, it would not be contained in the set of normal sets (itself), and therefore be normal. This leads to the conclusion that R is both normal and abnormal: Russell's paradox.
I honestly hope it helps...

---------- Post added 05-28-2010 at 09:25 AM ----------

kennethamy;169958 wrote:
I did not say there was no relation between them. But what difference does that make? We are talking about the barber shop paradox. Why need I say anything about the set paradox or the halting problem (whatever that may be)? To talk about X, why do I have to say anything about Y, unless X relates relevantly to Y in the context of the discussion? I said what I think is true about the barber shop paradox in the context of the OP. End of story. That is why you are so confused all the time. You never can tell what is relevant.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:26 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;169959 wrote:
I honestly hope it helps...


Helps what? What has this to do with the OP and its question? Nothing at all, so far as I can tell? That is why you are so confused all the time. You are unable to distinguish issues.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:31 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169962 wrote:
Helps what? What has this to do with the OP and its question? Nothing at all, so far as I can tell? That is why you are so confused all the time. You are unable to distinguish issues.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:34 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;169967 wrote:


Au revoir.........................
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:38 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169970 wrote:
Au revoir.........................


Oh Ken !...Laughing(cheers)

Veni Vidi Vici !
0 Replies
 
LordScroop
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 04:15 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169944 wrote:
Since the supposition contains a contradiction they cannot all be true together. That is what a contradiction is. A logically inconsistent set of statements.

I believe he could:lol: be lying but I do not see him contradicting himself.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » True Sentences
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/10/2024 at 09:02:48