Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 10:26:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801251526.KAA15977@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: bob@rattlesnake.com Sender: Lojban list From: bob@rattlesnake.com Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: lojban@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <01bd28da$8af5fb80$82770ed1@roble.intermedia.com.ar> (jorge@intermedia.com.ar) X-UIDL: 9facf05cc722c531ad6209be6f47b543 Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2605 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 26 12:45:05 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - But even if every word had a place for the metapphysics, that wouldn't help much, because we still would need a common meta-metaphysics to recognize whether the claim about the metaphysics was true. I am not sure the point of this remark. It sounds like a variant on Xeno's paradox. In a previous message you also mentioned an an infinite regress: Is that a true claim? We need a metaphysics to evaluate whether that claim is true or not. Say that we find such metaphysics, let's call it A. Then we say: le du'u le du'u la iesus cu cevni cu jetnu le xriso lijda cu jetnu abu The claim: "that Jesus is God is a truth of Christianity" is true by metaphysics A. Is this new claim true or not? We need yet again a metaphysics. And we can go on ad infinitum. The problem is that we're trying to include the metaphysics in the language, which is kind of contradictory. Let's answer your question: is this new claim true. Here is the procedure: Examine the following utterances. 1. The claim: "that X" is true by metaphysics A. 2. The claim: {The claim: "that X" is true by metaphysics A.} is true by metaphysics B. 3. The claim: [The claim: {The claim: "that X" is true by metaphysics A.} is true by metaphysics B.] is true by metaphysics C. Is the truth value of 3 different from the truth value of 2 when metaphysics C is the same as nmetaphysics B? The answer is no, if you select the right metaphysics. You may now create and examine new utterances 4, 5, 6, etc, as many as you like, and determine to your satisfaction that adding a new claim does not change the truth value; and this applies no matter how many you add. Adding a new claim does not change the truth value. Hence, adding any number of new claims does not change the truth value. Hence, you do not need a new metaphysics. Hence, you are saved from the fate of falling into an infinite regress. Xeno manages to walk across the room. In their race, Achilles runs past the tortoise. The arrow reaches its target. Likewise, we may still "need a common meta-metaphysics to recognize whether the claim about the metaphysics was true." as you said above, but we don't need more than one or two, so again the problem can be solved. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com moved house; new address: 952 East St., Lenox, MA 01240 USA +1 (413) 442-7761