Re: Can We Quantify over Everything?

On May 23, 1:12 pm, LauLuna <laureanol...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
You seem to think that (1) is
a proposition, since you consider it
tautologous and hence (I assume) true.

I thank you FOR QUOTING ME ACCURATELY
so that everybody can see how to rebut that.
You requested:
Consider

(1) all propositions not about themselves are propositions

If (1) quantifies over (1),

I replied (and YOU QUOTED me replying!)
Well, whether 1 quantifies over 1 (or not)
DEPENDS on whether
1 is (or is not) a proposition.
IF IT IS, then OF COURSE it quantifies
over itself. It is also clearly tautologous. It is NOT, however,
clearly ABOUT itself. Nor is it clearly NOT about itself,
for that matter.
That, however, simply has nothing to do with whether it is a
proposition.

My point is that my reply CLEARLY shows that I do NOT
think that 1 is a proposition (or that it isn't).
It shows that I consider that
question to be under debate.

Moreover, I continued:

You have 3 SEPARATE questions to answer about 1.
1. Is 1 a proposition?
2. Does 1 quantify over itself?
3. Is 1 about itself?

There is no paradox unless ALL 8
of the universes this puts us into are paradoxical.


So, again, *I* have not ANSWERED any of these
questions or claimed a side for any of them.
Moreover, I have DENIED THE IMPORTANCE of
answering any of these questions, because
YOU ARE ALLEGING PARADOX!
Therefore,
IT DOES NOT MATTER
what the answers to any of these questions may be!
If what you have stated is really a paradox, then it needs to
come up paradoxical under ALL 8 combinations of POSSIBLE
answers to these questions! If it comes up "possible" under
ANY combination, then the "resolution" of the paradox is
simply to insist that your framework of inquiry forces these
3 questions to be answered in the "possibilitating" combination!

You might then only object that
I have not clearly defined what 'being about' is.

I am sure you will do that later, but the problem is,
that may not matter either. In any case, since you
(as you already concede) haven't defined it yet,
you do NOT have a paradox YET.


I achieve this in a reasonable way
(IMHO) later in my post

Probably.

and the paradoxes is reproduced.

No, produced for the FIRST time.
The existence of paradox DEPENDS on "about"
being defined that way. Which is unusual.
Paradoxes normally DON'T depend on the content
of the terms. Since you are talking about Thomson's theorem
(which you Should Not; that is just the denial of Russell's
Paradox, and Russell's Paradox is old), you know that
Ay[Rry<->~Ryy]
is paradoxical because it is false
for ALL R and ALL r, REGARDLESS of what
they mean or are interpreted to. If this winds up depending
on a definition of R then the proper thing to say is simply
that R does not exist, and that that definition therefore
simply fails. You cannot, for example, define r to MEAN
"the smallest element of the empty set". The empty set
doesn't have any elements, so if you try to make r mean
this, you fail; r doesn't mean anything. Aboutness may mean
something but if this were REALLY a paradox then it simply
shouldn't matter what. The only way it does matter is if
some statement that does NOT appear to be "in this form"
(when you phrase it with "about"), DOES turn into an
instance of this form AFTER YOU EXPAND THE DEFINITION
of "about".

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can current theory explain the twin paradox?
    ... Time has to be a property of matter ... Twin A and Twin B start at rest ... >>> both A and B see each other as both older and younger than each other. ... >> longer the true SR Twin Paradox. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Damn you, FEDEX! or Nikon D40 lost in Springfield, MO blackhole.
    ... the 2 mp Mavica he had been using with a Nikon D40. ... After shopping around, he got me to order one for him. ... The shipper had it insured, but from what I have read it could take weeks to sort this crap out. ... You may get your insurance from FedEx and a couple weeks later they find it and deliver it. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Einsteins Aether
    ... No, since it isn't matter, it is unmeasurable. ... This immediately leads to an apparent paradox. ... It hasn't occurred to you, apparently, that your premises are wrong, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why doesnt everything happen all at once?
    ... Not a paradox at all, there can be more than one opinion that's contrary to received opinion. ... We don't seem to live in a world of two valued logic, no matter how much we might want to. ... That's a good exam question to test a student's understanding, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Can We Quantify over Everything?
    ... YOU ARE ALLEGING PARADOX! ... IT DOES NOT MATTER ... simply fails. ... "the smallest element of the empty set". ...
    (sci.logic)