I'm not following you. When you use the word "they"? Who are you referring to?

I’m coming in late here, so apologies in advance if this has already been discussed somewhere in the preceding 14 pages - but at the risk of adding yet another dimension to this good discussion it should be pointed out that there is already a real life aspect here: namely self driving cars. There are numerous hypothetical situations, here’s one:

You`re alone in a self driving car going 55 mph down a two lane road. All of a sudden another car filled with people pulls out in front of you and stalls (maybe it’s driven by a person or maybe there’s a mechanical failure). We’ll assume the technology is sophisticated enough to tell that there is more than one person in the other car. Your self driving car cannot swerve around it because there’s another car coming the other way. The only options are to plough into the stalled car or or to swerve off the road down a steep hill and over a cliff. Your self driving car has air bags and other safety equipment so if your car crashes into the side of the stalled car you will survive with minor injuries but the occupants of the other car will be seriously injured and possibly die. On the other hand if your self driving car chooses to serve off the road then likely you will die.

How should the programmers of the self driving car handle this situation? Beats me.

Therefore, how can any one say that "this sentence contains five words" is true if no one knows which sentence is being referred to? — RussellA

Just to repeat:

"this sentence contains five words" is true IFF this sentence contains five words — RussellA

This sentence has five words. Not true? — TonesInDeepFreeze
Yes, true. — RussellA — EricH

Which sentence were you referring to when you made these statements?

it is not correct to say that the sentence "this sentence contains five words" is true because it contains five words. — RussellA

"this sentence contains five words" is true IFF this sentence contains five words, not because the sentence "this sentence contains five words" contains five words. — RussellA

This sentence has five words. Not true? — TonesInDeepFreeze
Yes, true. — RussellA

The words "has" and "contain" have identical meaning in the context of this discussion.

Conclusion? "This sentence contains five words" is true. QED

OK. So now let's go back to your Possibility two

In the expression "this sentence is false", which sentence is "this" referring to?

There are several possibilities.

Possibility two
It could be referring to itself. In this case, the sentence "this sentence is false" means that the expression "this sentence" is false. But this is meaningless, and is similar to saying "this house" is false. — RussellA

So let's substitute "has five words" for "is false" but otherwise keep your reasoning word for word:

In the expression "this sentence has five words", which sentence is "this" referring to?
Possibility 2
It could be referring to itself. In this case, the sentence "this sentence has five words" means that the expression "this sentence" has five words. Of course it's false, but per your reasoning it appears meaningful.

This sentence has five words. Not true? — TonesInDeepFreeze
Yes, true. — RussellA


Summary
In summary, I see a set of words on my screen. I see that there are five words, and this is true. The five words happen to be "this", "sentence", "has", "five" and "words". I, as the observer, recognize a meaning in the five words as "this sentence has five words". Words being inanimate cannot refer. Only a conscious observer outside the words can refer. In the mind of this conscious outside observer, the words "this sentence" refers to the statement "this sentence has five words", which is true. — RussellA — EricH

I'm not following you. Please humor this bear of little brain and take this one step at a time. You said previously that "This sentence has five words" is true. Do you still hold that position. Yes or no?

I thought I was understanding you, but now I'm confused. Here's what you said earlier:

This sentence has five words. Not true? — TonesInDeepFreeze
Yes, true. — RussellA

Summary
In summary, I see a set of words on my screen. I see that there are five words, and this is true. The five words happen to be "this", "sentence", "has", "five" and "words". I, as the observer, recognize a meaning in the five words as "this sentence has five words". Words being inanimate cannot refer. Only a conscious observer outside the words can refer. In the mind of this conscious outside observer, the words "this sentence" refers to the statement "this sentence has five words", which is true. — RussellA

Going back to your 3 possibilities, this is the form of your Possibility 3. So as I read this, you consider "This sentence has five words" to be true under your Possibility 3. Am I getting this right?

I will duplicate your examples only substituting the Pentastring instead of Liar's paradox. Here's what you said (with substitutions):

In the expression "this sentence is false" "this sentence has five words", which sentence is "this" referring to?

Possibility one
It could be referring to the sentence "the cat is grey". In this case, the sentence "this sentence is false" "this sentence has five words" means that the sentence "this cat is grey" is false has five words, which is meaningful but obviously false.

Possibility two
It could be referring to itself. In this case, the sentence "this sentence is false" "this sentence has five words" means that the expression "this sentence" is false has five words. But this is meaningless, and is similar to saying "this house" is false.. This is meaningful but false ("this sentence" has two words.)

Possibility three
It could be referring to the sentence "this sentence is false" "This sentence has five words". In this case, the sentence "this sentence is false" "This sentence has five words" means that the sentence "this sentence is false" is false "this sentence has five words" has five words. Meaningful and true.

So AFAICT the Pentastring is meaningful in all 3 of your possibilities. Yes this is a minor point, but I wanted to clear it up.

As to whether a sentence which is seemingly self referential but instead points to the world is truly self referential or not? I leave that to you and Tones. :grin:

If I'm following this, you stated that all self referential statements are meaningless. Tones disagrees with that and offers the counter example "This sentence has five words". I could be mistaken (happens on a regular basis) but it seems that this is meaningful under all three of your possibilities. — EricH


It depends what the word "this" in the expression "this sentence is false" is referring to.

If it is referring, for example, to the sentence "this cat is grey", then the expression "this sentence is false" means that the sentence "this cat is grey" is false, which is meaningful.

But if it is referring to itself, then the expression "this sentence is false" means that the expression "this sentence" is false, which is like saying "this house" is false.

Surely in this instance, isn't it the case that both "this sentence" is false and "this house" is false are meaningless? — RussellA

Perhaps you were in a hurry when you responded, but I wasn't talking about the Liar Statement, I was talking about Tones' counter example "The sentence has five words." So in all 3 of your scenarios "This sentence has five words" appears to be meaningful.

Now if I'm following from your last reply to Tones you seem to be acknowledging this - but you are claiming that because "This sentence has five words" asserts a situation in the real world then it is no longer self referential. Am I following you correctly?

If I'm following this, you stated that all self referential statements are meaningless. Tones disagrees with that and offers the counter example "This sentence has five words". I could be mistaken (happens on a regular basis) but it seems that this is meaningful under all three of your possibilities.

Is there a reference you can point to for this approach? A manual or guide?

"This string has five words"
The words seem to me to correspond with things in the world. — TonesInDeepFreeze

This is just to expand on RussellA ’s response. The underlying issue here is that there is no information in the 5 words which lets us know that it is self referential. The words “This string” (or “This sentence”) could be pointing to a different sentence, say, “Two plus two equals four”.

You say the the words seem to you to correspond with things in the world - and that may very well be the case - but in order to make that conclusion we need to rely on additional information NOT in those 5 words.

Suppose we did this:
A) “The sentence identified by the letter A in this post has thirteen words”

This works, but we need to rely on information not in the sentence.

Alternatively, I could hand you a piece of paper and on that piece of paper would be the words “The sentence on this piece of paper I just handed you has fourteen words”

That also works, but again we are relying on information in the world.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

I do have a slight different take than RussellA on what combination of words constitutes a sentence. Consider poetry:

“The quality of mercy is not strained”
“The moon was a ghostly galleon”
"Make a joyful noise unto the Lord"
etc

I consider these to be sentences. They are grammatically correct and they evoke images and/or emotions in my mind. However they do not take a truth value since they are not asserting anything specific about the world. Well OK - “The moon was a ghostly galleon” in theory makes a statement about the world, so literally interpreted it is false, but we all recognize that it is poetry and not to be taken literally.

So in this sense “This sentence has five words” is a legitimate sentence, it just does not take a truth value unless we make an assumption about the specific meaning of the first two words.

I hope this helps clarify things.

Just to add to Tim Wood's previous question,what is meant by the words "God" (or "God-like") and "positive"

Thanks! Just edited my post.

Existential Comics has a good take on Witt this week:

https://existentialcomics.com/comic/551

Perhaps I'm totally missing the point, but a hole needs boundaries that define where it is - i.e. what/where is the border between the "hole" and the "not hole"? Otherwise there is no hole.

What is in the hole? If we're talking about the physical universe (reality, existence, everything that is the case, etc) then the word "nothing" (or nothingness) does not apply because even in empty space there are energy fields and subatomic particles coming in and out of existence.

Doesn't 'pop up' imply it popped up from a origin point/event, and thus, by my use of the term 'cause', this origin point/event is the cause? — Barkon

No. There is no specific prior event that causes the atom to decay at that particular point in time.

Otherwise, what is the significance of 'popping up'? Is it what the claim to be 'nothing-ness', you claim pop has no meaning? — Barkon

The philosophical concept of causality does not apply to physical phenomena at the atomic & sub-atomic level. The words "significance" and "meaning" do not have any meaning/usage here.

Things don't pop up for no reason — Barkon

In fact they do all the time at the atomic & sub-atomic level. Just for example - radioactive decay. Atoms will randomly split and new atoms will pop up - at random intervals. When you look at large numbers of such events the aggregate decay follows statistical laws (1/2 life) but there is no reason for any individual atom to decay at a particular point in time. You might also want to check out double slit experiment, etc.

Are there expressions of language that are true but are NOT true on the basis of their meaning AND also are not derived from other facts? Put slightly differently - is there another mechanism/method to determine the truth value of expressions of language? — EricH

Yes there is a TV in my living room right now is true on the basis of eyesight. — PL Olcott

So there are two distinct mechanisms to determine the truth value of a language expressions, yes?

every expression of language that is true on the basis of its meaning is either a fact or derived from a fact. — PL Olcott

Are there expressions of language that are true but are NOT true on the basis of their meaning AND also are not derived from other facts? Put slightly differently - is there another mechanism/method to determine the truth value of expressions of language?

This is ALL there is to expressions of language that are true on the basis of their meaning
(1) Some expressions of language are stipulated to be true thus providing semantic meaning to otherwise totally meaningless finite strings. These expressions are the set of facts. — PL Olcott

Here you seem to be saying that we can determine the set of facts from a well constructed dictionary.

Actual facts are expressions of language that correctly model the actual world even if everyone in the universe disagrees or no one in the universe knows them. — PL Olcott

And here you seem to be re-stating the Correspondence Theory of Truth.

I’m puzzled as to why you are posting on this amateur forum. Your ideas are groundbreaking and revolutionary. I urge you to submit your thesis to The American Philosophical Quarterly (or equivalent). If there is any validity to your ideas then of course they will print them and the name PL Olcott will be entered into the pantheon of famous philosophers along side with Aristotle, Kant, etc. Go for it PL!

First of all my complements on a very well constructed OP. Anyway, this is sort of a whimsical notion, but I'm seeing a sort of a poetic analogy between this and discussions of Quantum Physics. Just as a photon is either a wave or particle depending on how it is measured, it seems like these difference in math philosophy may all be neither wrong nor right - it depends on how the topic is approached.

Don't take this too literally :roll:

Perhaps an ignorant question but isn’t this just a variation on Occam’s Razor?

When I show how this can be coherently accomplished then the Tarski Undefinability Theorem is refuted. — PL Olcott

This is a very ambitious project - if you succeed then the name PL Olcott will become world famous.

But so far I can't make any sense of what you're saying - this is why I'm trying to get some basic terminology clear. I'll ask again. What is the difference between a "sense input" and a "sense meaning"?

Actual interaction with the world that requires sense input from the sense organs is specifically excluded from the body of analytic knowledge. — PL Olcott

A 128-bit integer GUID refers to a single unique sense meaning, thus the class living animal {dog} has its own unique GUID. — PL Olcott

I still can't make any sense out of this. What is the difference between a "sense input" and a "sense meaning"? The only way we can even know that there are such things as dogs is through sense input.

3ab2c577-7d38-4a3c-adc9-c5eff8491282 stands for the living animal dog — PL Olcott

Dogs exist as conceptual objects — PL Olcott

I still can't make any sense of this. Does the Cyc project identifier refer to

- a conceptual object
- a collection of conceptual objects (i.e., how do we know that one person's conception of a dog is the same as another's)
- a particular existing living animal that happens to be a dog
- all living animals that happen to be dogs
- other?

Dogs exist as conceptual objects even if all of reality is a mere figment of the imagination. — PL Olcott

So this whole project is merely the embodiment of people's imagination.

Only in the sense that facts can be looked up in an encyclopedia and encyclopedias can be updated with new facts. Actual interaction with the world that requires sense input from the sense organs is specifically excluded from the body of analytic knowledge. That dogs exist is analytic. That there is a small black dog in my living room right now is synthetic. — PL Olcott

You'll have to forgive this bear of little brain, but i can't make any sense of this. How do we know that dogs exist? Can we rule out the possibility of an overnight canine pandemic that killed every dog on the planet via analytic statements? Not that I can see. The only way to determine this is via sense input.

apologies if that came across as a personal criticism - not my attention. I just skimmed your post and missed your distinction.

Other than that- see my response to the OP.

Why don’t classical and quantum physics go together? — Wolfgang

Classical and quantum physics go together quite well. You can read a very technical discussion here (which I don't pretend to fully understand) - but the essence of this is that "So after averaging out the quantum-behaviour you just get classical mechanics."

Now if you're looking for things which don't go together, one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics is the inability to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity,

But perhaps I'm not following you.

Seems like hair splitting to me - the equation is deterministic but when you use it the results aren't. But OK.

“Features common to Copenhagen-type interpretations include the idea that quantum mechanics is intrinsically indeterministic,”

Just scroll down to the section on Copenhagen

Every physicist agrees that the schrodinger equation is deterministic”

Not sure about that

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations

That is not quite correct. The job of the president (amongst other things) is to insure that federal laws are enforced. Trump is being charged with breaking state laws under which the president does not have authority. Trump has been arguing in court that even tho these are state laws they fall within the “outer perimeter” of his responsibilities. I’m skeptical of this line of reasoning but I’m not a constitutional scholar -and neither are you

I am likely an outlier in this conversation. I see two groups of people who have been buffeted by historic forces outside their control who are struggling to survive. It is an ongoing tragedy for everyone that shows no signs of ever resolving.

This Sunday's NY Times gives an excellent historic overview of the events that lead up to 1948. Strongly recommend that - even if you are familiar with the basics - folks read this to ground the discussion in the historical facts.

First, I'm not a physicist which is why I linked you the material to read. But I think what you're looking for is that we either do not know the exact mechanisms or we are unable to know after the fact. Our lack of knowledge or inability is of course not enough to declare it as a first cause however. That's because we've clearly defined what a first cause is so can easily identify it. — Philosophim

I still have not communicated. I'll try one more time. BTW - not that it's truly relevant but I was a physics major in college (albeit not a very good physicist). I gave the example of an atom decaying because it's easy to visualize - but in fact this is only one of many examples in physics where causality falls apart.

Anyway your definition of first cause seems to have two components - firstly that is is the beginning of a causal chain and secondly that it must fit into your definition of random - i.e. the atom can decay into a refrigerator.

While the decay of an atom is not random per your definition, if is completely and totally random with respect to the time at which it decays. It could decay 10 seconds from now or 10 billion years from now - but there is no prior event which determines when this happens. This is not a matter of lack of knowledge or our inability to measure something. When quantum mechanics were first formulated there was intense discussion/debate amongst the scientific community about what this meant. We have Einstein's famous quote that "[God] doesn't play dice' . But it has been proven over and over again that this is how the universe works - and Bell's Theorem has removed all reasonable doubt. *

we do not know the exact mechanisms — Philosophim

We know the mechanism - and the randomness in outcomes is baked into the mechanism. This is not like rolling the dice or flipping a coin - these can be predicted with sufficiently accurate measuring systems.

Every time an atom decays it is the start of a new causal chain.

So this gets to your second element - the lack of complete and total randomness in outcomes. And here we are getting into metaphysical definitions about which I have no opinion. I leave that part of the discussion between you and @Metaphysician Undercover.

I've said all I can say here - I give you the last word.

----------------------------------
* In the interest of completeness it should be noted that there are still a small number of folks in the scientific community who are trying to keep some notion of causality alive - but at best causality is on life support.

Perhaps I'm not following you, but it seems to me that you're not addressing the random nature of these events.

there is too much internal energy within an atom due to a proton, electron imbalance, there is not enough force to keep the atom together. — Philosophim

This describes the necessary conditions for decay to occur, but what is the specific event/cause X that causes the specific Y at that specific time?

Could a quark simply appear somewhere in the universe than vanish out five seconds later, all without a prior cause? — Philosophim

What's your answer? Yes or no?