Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2006 - 07:26pm PT
|
Moving forward a couple millenia...
Kurt Gödel proved fundamental results about axiomatic systems showing in any axiomatic mathematical system there are propositions that cannot be proved or disproved within the axioms of the system.
Math is fundamental!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2006 - 07:48pm PT
|
Trad, there appear to be a number of confusions in your last post about truth. I'll respond one by one:
1) You say, "'My opinion is true because it is my opinion,' refers to self - the author self. So the statement's truth is context-sensitive."
Are you hereby saying that ANY opinion Werner has is true BECAUSE he is the one happening to have it?
That would be very strange indeed, since people have all sorts of opinions (the Earth is flat, for example) that are false. So, if it is the case that you think this way, then please clarify. I will proceed thinking not, however.
You seem to be thinking that what Werner means is something like, "My opinion is in fact my opinion because it is my opinion." But that claim is saying nothing about TRUTH or CONTENT (hence, Werner's following claims don't actually follow from it). Instead, this is merely a (almost?) tautological claim that one can't be mistaken about the fact of one's having or not having a particular opinion.
There are problems with this view as well (as the supposed distinction between Ketchup and Catsup demonstrates). Even so, this model does not make TRUTH subjective, nor does it indicate anything self-referential in Werner's claim. Even on this model, the reference of Werner's claim is to HIMself, as you note, not to the claim ITself. The CLAIM is not SELF-referential just because it has a reference to the speaker in it.
So, the "SELF-reference" in Werner's claim is only that his claim (opinion) mentions HIS own opinion. But there is no proper inference from that fact to the claim that his OPINION is TRUE just because it is, in fact, his opinion. The predicate "is true" must refer, like any other predicate. The question is: to what does a truth-relativist's truth predicate refer? If you say, "Why, to their opinion, of course (like I said, it's self-referential)," then you have merely conflated opinion with truth. You can bite that bullet, if you like, but the implications are more sweeping and unsavory than ANY philosopher is willing to endure.
No, instead, you are likely to acknowledge that the truth predicate refers to some relation between claims (opinions, etc.) and some state of affairs "in the world" (which implies at least intersubjectivity, if not objectivity).
This is to say that "is true" means that whatever Werner's claim (opinion, etc.) is ABOUT must correlate with some state of affairs in the world. Now, if the opinion is ABOUT (content) some state of affairs about Werner (such as, that he in fact HAS such an opinion), there is still a fact of the matter about whether or not there is such a state of affairs about Werner (the state of affairs of whether or not he in fact has such an opinion). (Surely you are not denying that there are any FACTS, states of affairs, etc.)
Thus, I see no way in which Werner's CLAIM is self-referential such that the function of the truth predicate itself is affected.
2) You say, "For example, the statement can be false if the context is you, and true if the context is translated to Werner. Analogously, my example is true in the original language, but meaningless when translated into another language."
Werner's statement "My opinion is true because it is my opinion," is incorrect (read just as it reads) regardless of context. It is false in my context because I don't even HAVE the opinion. But it is also false in Werner's context because, although he DOES have the opinion, the CONTENT of his opinion nevertheless does not correlate with the facts of the world.
"Is true" is not satisfied as a predicate just because one HAS an opinion. If I have the opinion that 1 + 1 = 3, I might say, "My opinion (that 1 + 1 = 3) is true because it is my opinion." But my adding the truth predicate "is true" to my claim doesn't have some magical power to MAKE the content of that opinion true (even for me). You appear to be conflating the fact of HAVING an opinion with the CONTENT of that opinion. It is NOT the case (for anybody) that 1 + 1 = 3, regardless of what one's opinion (or even claim about one's opinions) might be.
Your example is a different case from Werner's claim, however. Your example is genuinely self-referential insofar as it CONTAINS a reference to ITSELF (rather than to you). (The fact that you utter a claim about yourself doesn't make the claim "self" referential.) "Self reference" occurs only when a claim references ITSELF, regardless of who utters it. Your example does have this property, while Werner's does not.
Furthermore, your example claim ["You can't translate this statement into Japanese and preserve its meaning"] is not "meaningless" in any other language than English, as you say. The statement, even in another language, is a claim ABOUT propositional content, which implies that it must have some, even in another language, while a "meaningless" statement has (by definition) no propositional content. Moreover, in fact, the statement can be translated into any other language than Japanese and retain its entire original propositional content. Even in Japanese the statement would not be meaningless! It would instead simply mean something different from what it meant in English. We can even know what propositional content the statement IN JAPANESE would have (although we cast that content in English): "You can't translate the statement, '''You can't translaste this statement into Japanese and preserve its meaning''' into Japanese and preserve its meaning" (where what appears between the ''' quotation marks actually appears in English in the Japanese sentence). And so on.
You appear to be conflating sentences and propositions, which, since Alonzo Church, is a mistake philosophers don't tend to make. It is true that your original SENTENCE doesn't exist in its Japanese translation (since it was an English sentence). However, that fact doesn't imply that the propositional content of that sentence cannot be conveyed in Japanese (as noted above).
The self-reference of the sentence is that the SENTENCE refers to itself (which is what makes it appear to be paradoxical). The sentence does NOT refer to its propositional content (if it did, then it would no longer be SELF referential). But then it would also not be paradoxical; it would merely be trivially false: "This propositional content cannot be conveyed by translation." But clearly you can MEAN that VERY thing in ANY language! So, you can convey that MEANING in any language and between languages. Thus, the paradox suggested by your example statement evaporates as quickly as you realize the conflation between sentences and propositions.
3) You say, "So it is mildly related to the OP. Since it is a question of 'ethics' - quoted intentionally - the truth is as indiscernible, since there is no community agreement, and since each climbing event occurs in a different context."
And here IS where the rubber meets the road. Just because agreement is lacking in a community does not imply that the "truth (of whatever subject) is indiscernible." It MIGHT be the case the the truth of the matter is indiscernible, as you suggest. However, even if THAT were the case, that would not imply that there IS no truth of the matter (which is what Werner opines). If you are going to suggest such a hard-core anti-realism about truth in the context of climbing ethics, then you will have to argue for that. I agree that the realism/anti-realism distinction can be argued context-by-context, and I am sympathetic to anti-realism in a few contexts (such as humor, for example). However, your (in effect) claim that climbing ethics is an anti-realistic context does not follow from your claim about there not happening to be any agreement in the community. That would be akin to the invalid argument cultural relativists try to float: "There is no agreement about ethics across cultures; therefore there are no objective ethical facts." Invalid, and easy to demonstrate as incorrect.
There may be no agreement about climbing ethics. But it does not follow from that fact (if it is a fact) that any facts about climbing ethics are indiscernible OR that there ARE no objective climbing ethical facts. Even if you could prove (which would not be trivial), that particular claims about climbing ethics are akin to something like Goldbach's Conjecture, you would still have to ARGUE from there to sustain an anti-realistic assertion about the context of climbing ethics.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2006 - 07:52pm PT
|
Eeek! "Math is fundamental?"
Mathematics falls prey to Gödel just as does any other axiomatic system.
But, again, this says nothing about the function of the truth predicate, about absolutism/relativism, or about climbing ethics.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2006 - 07:53pm PT
|
Werner, I feel better now. Whew, you had me worried there for awhile.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 12:09am PT
|
Hey Ron, you forgot to mention the slaw.
When there are so many tasty and memorable items on the menu, why is it that the WOS guys always insist on ordering the same thing; a burnt weenie sandwich served cold, dry, and face down and NO relish? Definitely NO relish.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 01:28am PT
|
Pot shots and clever quips do not demonstrate, or even indicate, actual thought. Mimi, the AI exists right now to replace you.
What am I saying? "You?" The personal pronoun suggests that at the very least Mimisoft could pass the Turing Test, which is doubtful.
BTW, is there any mathematical system that is not axiomatic?
Finally, Mimisoft is dead wrong. I do like relish. But it has gotta be dill. The sweet is for wussies. I don't know what Mark likes, though, so it's best to not lump us together as the "WOS guys" when it comes to important things like matters of taste. Come to think of it, I think he likes sweet. (gag)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 01:32am PT
|
So according to the axiomatic truth, things equal to one another are equal to each other?
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 01:48am PT
|
One is the loneliest number there can ever beeeeeeeee........
Two can be as sad as one............it's the loneliest number since the number one...........
The Turing Test?! YOU guys really are aliens! If you're bonafide Earthlings, name the philosopher who wrote the above words.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 01:52am PT
|
I don' like to rap off an anchor less it has tu rings.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 02:01am PT
|
One is not lonely
It's sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah, the most, the supermost reservoir of all pleasure ........
-:)
|
|
Teth
climber
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 10:19am PT
|
It is true that one’s opinion is one’s opinion (unless one is lying), but this has no barring on the truth or falsehood of the content of the opinion.
Madbolter1, I fail to see why you needed a page to state this, and you where doing so well at keeping it short and snippy. Maybe I just lack an interest in philosophy and just can’t appreciate what a good juicy topic it is?
As for math... no two things are equal to each other if you examen them closely enough, so math is only an approximation when applied outside of the hypothetical. But “close enough” is close enough for me. I am a realist.
Teth
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 11:26am PT
|
Teth, there's just no denying that I am a philosopher through and through, and careful philosophers just love to say in ten words what can be said in one word or less by others.
Of course, most people lead deeply confused, non-introspective, unexamined lives. Sometimes thinking carefully reveals simple confusions, and sometimes the confusions are more subtle. Since we are ALL confused about different things at different times, it pays us all to be careful with each other and to help each other. Your one-liner, while true, is in effect just an assertion; and there were multiple confusions in the earlier post to which I responded. I take such topics seriously, so maybe I respond with too much gravity. But, on the other hand, I'm bucking a "sound bite" society.
Whatever you thought of John Kerry (and I am certainly not endorsing him in what follows), he did have the most sophisticated view on abortion that I have heard from a politician. He said in one of the debates (my paraphrase), "Yes, I am a Catholic, so I think that abortion is always wrong. However, I live in a free society, and I don't have the right to impose my religiously-based moral views on those who have other religious beliefs. So, as a Catholic I am opposed to abortion. As an American, I think the laws should reflect the broad consensus."
The media picked this up and started treating it as yet another example of Kerry "waffling." I think he did "waffle" on some things, but not on this! Quips and bites were taken from his response and trotted out on the evening news, and articles were written, saying: "Kerry can't make up his mind, and he can't have it both ways." Kerry was close to winning (look at the popular vote). But Kerry's campaign died on the alter erected to sound bites and one-liners. And now we have (ack) Bush, arguably the most thoughtLESS president ever. Whatever else you think about Kerry, he did have a thoughtful and reasonable (and I think correct) view about abortion. People didn't "get it," though, because our society simply can't cope with anything presented in more than a (short) sentence.
Kerry might not have won anyway, and he might have been (probably would have been) a bad president. My point is that he lost in part because our society can't fathom anything but superficial thinking and modes of expression.
I really try to be careful in discussions I think matter, so if I err on the side of saying a bit more than is the bare minimum needed to convince the most thoughtful, please have charity toward me.
I'll spare you my pontifications about mathematics, since mathematics doesn't really matter, being only about abstract objects and all. ;-)
***
Mimisoft, Mimisoft.... the question is confusing. Philosopher, huh? That makes it hard. Never thought of him (Nilsson) that way, although I guess even Mimisoft could be cast as a "philosopher" if you set the bar low enough and are willing to include bad AI quips as evidence of "philosophical thought." I must admit, though, that some of what professional philosophers do is indistinguishable from bad AI. Maybe Mimisoft was programmed to emulate (with limited success) bad philosophers.
And, I haven't yet proved that I'm an Earthling. Actually, I'd prefer not to be. But I DO like relish! Some Earthlings make some darn good relish.
|
|
Euroford
Trad climber
chicago
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 11:36am PT
|
madbolter, you are the hands down champion of the uneeded pointless ramble. your posts so effectivly exceed my attention span.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 12:44pm PT
|
cool
|
|
Teth
climber
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 01:51pm PT
|
Madbolter1, just ribbing you a bit on your post length, as it is such a trade mark for you. You make a good point about attention span in today’s society. I am a bit of an exception, as I did not learn to read until I was 14 (dyslexia or something similar), so in order to get through school I really had to pay attention in class as I could not study. I still have trouble with the reading though (100% comprehension according to the many reading tests I have taken, but slow as molasses) so my long attention span does not always translate to reading. (I did not manage to get past the third chapter in a text book until my second year of College.) I always read through your climbing posts, but this philosophy stuff reads too much like a text book and my eyes start to blur....
What was this thread originally about? Oh yeah, the question of whether or not to bring a hammer on a climb. I think I had asked a question about hooking off into the unknown on an FA if you did not have a hammer and drill, back in the House of Cards thread, but I think my post killed the discussion.
Teth
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 03:19pm PT
|
Thanks, Teth. I know the philosophy is a bit dense. Sorry for that. Don't want to blur any eyes... there are other substances that do a better job of that and bring more pleasure in the process. Of course, philosophy is my drug of choice. (pathetic)
OT, I do have to wonder about the hard line of not even bringing a hammer along. I remember one day seeing a guy take a fabulous whipper out of the triple cracks pitch of the Shield. Apparently, one ratty old RURP sling ripped, and all the ones below capitulated as well. He had to go back up and replace all those RURPS with cabled ones--using a hammer, of course.
Most "clean" climbs rely upon hammer-placed fixed gear. I just don't see bringing the ascent to a halt and retreating if you can't come up with some way to replace the blown placement with something clean. It makes more sense to me to replace (with a hammer) the blown placement and thereby restore the climb to its "clean" status for other parties.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 03:36pm PT
|
OMG!
Is this still going on?
And now we have Werner quoting axiomatic truths of the Swami Sik-viagra.
That's it!
I'm gonna have to start another thread, mallet-heads vs nutz.
|
|
Ben Rumsen
Social climber
No Name City ( and it sure ain't pretty )
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 03:37pm PT
|
" What was this thread originally about? Oh yeah, the question of whether or not to bring a hammer on a climb " -
Always bring a hammer on aid climbs, clean or not. A hammer and a cleaning tool may be the only way to remove nuts once they are weighted.
|
|
Euroford
Trad climber
chicago
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 03:39pm PT
|
we've been over that before. a 'clean' climb isn't really a clean climb when you have to rely on hammered fixed gear. IMO, its a nailing line that just so happens to be fixed when you happen to be on it.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2006 - 04:11pm PT
|
When I first got to town in the mid-80's I was out roped soloing as usual but this time ran into a couple of local young hotshots working on something relatviely unimaginable. We pitched some banter back and forth and then they asked, "have you met xxxx yet?". I said no, and they said, "if he asks you to go climbing with him it's ok, but when you show up just tell him you forgot your rack. Under no circumstances let him lead on your rack as he thinks stoppers and hexes are just new age bashies and he hammers every one he places until its fixed."
I present this in the spirit of creative compromises - not...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!