Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox

On 24 Sep 2005 11:41:10 -0700, William of Ockham
<d3uckner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> [Moore said]: "Our description of P(w) as uncountable, even though
> correct, must be understood relative to our own current point of view.
> From another point of view this very set may be countable. But I want
> to argue that such relativism, compelling though it is, is subject to
> the by now familiar predicament that any statement of it, if it is to
> be intelligible at all, will have to be understood within a framework
> that casts it as a straighforward error. ****It is this which I take
> to be Skolem's paradox****."
>
> That is to say, when it is claimed that P(w) is not _unconditionally_
> uncountable, we have no way of understanding this except as the
> demonstrably false claim that it is not uncountable at all.

What is paradoxical about that? As I read it, Moore's argument is
simply that the thesis of relativism about cardinality is either
unintelligible or false.

.