Re: Am I a token or a type?

From: Lennart Nilsson <leonard.nilsson.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:07:53 +0200

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lennart Nilsson" <leonard.nilsson.domain.name.hidden>
To: "Bruno Marchal" <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Am I a token or a type?


> I think that is for the science of physics to find out and not a question
of
> logic. I tend to like this statement from a member of the
avoid-l.domain.name.hidden
> list /Lennart
>
> " Questions about the validity of rules of inference generally arise
> because of the opaqueness of one or more of the primtive terms adopted
for
> a given system. As long as you stick with 'and', 'not', and the other
> well-understood terms, you usually encounter no difficulties, because the
> presystematic usage, and the explanation of this usage (outside the sysyem
> proper) is crystal clear.The details of the use of these terms is then
> subsequently elaborated by their use in the definitions and theorems of
the
> system. Even here, however, there was, initially, some reluctance to
accept
> 'if...then...' as material implication. The opponents were, in essence,
> shouted down, because of the prior habits in the use of Modus Ponens. In
> quantification theory 'for all...' and 'for some...' don't generate much
> contraversy until you begin to introduce identity '=' . Thank You
Leibnitz!!
> The problems that occur with 'possible' stem from the facts that 1)
there
> is no prior agreed-upon clear meaning of the term presystematically and 2)
> none of the formalized systems, from Lewis on, shed much further light on
> the (what I would call 'inherent') obscurity.
> An instructive quote '...if we decide that a given term (say
> 'ectoplasmic'), because of its presystematic usage,is not amenable to
> clarification, we do not take it as primitive - but then neither do we
> define it in the system.' - Nelson Goodman, 'The Structure of Appearance',
> III,2.
> 'Possible', 'necessary', 'cause', 'conscious', 'essence', etc., etc. do
> not and should not occur in formalized scientific systems precisely
because
> their presystematic usage is so confused and ambiguous."
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruno Marchal" <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
> To: "Lennart Nilsson" <leonard.nilsson.domain.name.hidden>;
> <Fabric-of-Reality.domain.name.hidden>
> Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 1:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Am I a token or a type?
>
>
> > At 19:37 +0200 4/08/2002, Lennart Nilsson wrote:
> > >The way I see it is that we DO have to run the UD on a VERY specialized
> > >machinery.......
> >
> >
> > Which one? and Why? What will be special about that machinery and
> > how that "special" things does play a role in our experience.
> > (Perhaps you are right but that seems to me incompatible with
> > the comp hypothesis, imo).
> >
> > And where would that very specialized machinery comes from?
> >
> > Bruno
>
Received on Mon Aug 05 2002 - 05:01:15 PDT