RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletranslation style question)

[Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, And Rosta wrote:

> Xod:
> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, And Rosta wrote:
> >
> > > Xod:
> >
> > How do you intend to prove to me that ".ui" lacks a truth value?
>
> Maybe someone will come up with further arguments, but I offer this:
> the reasoning that would give ui a truth value would also give
> smiles and frowns truth values, and could be further pursued to
> give smoke a truth value (smoke is true iff there is fire; from
> the presence of smoke one can deduce the presence of fire). It leads
> to a reductio ad absurdum, whereby the valid and useful notion of
> propositionality is destroyed.



".ui" is an utterance; a symbol intended to exchange meaning. Is smoke? If
we're arranged that smoke has a certain meaning, and the signal is sent
but the condition to which it maps is not met, the smoke is a lie.



-- 
The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.