• god must be atheist
    5.1k
    Incorrect assumption. Some truths are beyond the knowability by humans, by way of complexity or escaping detection.
    β€” god must be atheist

    Prove it!
    TheMadFool

    Funny.

    This can only be proven by an example. And if I know the example, then it is impossible to use that example.

    On the other hand, without proof it is acceptable, that the human mind is only capable of some complexity but not of all complexity. For instance, religionists will tell you that god is so complex, that we can't fathom his thoughts. This is an example which has no proof value, but enough creative force to make you see the point.

    The escaping from detection is easier to see. We sense the world and create our thoughts based on our senses. For truth we have to rely on a model of the world which model we built relying on our senses. However, we can't trust our senses. Maybe they relate to use reality, maybe they don't. Thus, all the knowledge and truth we have accumulated about the world and its truhts, may be misguided, and completely off. Again, how does one prove this? It is completely unprovable but totally conceivable.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    6. Know p is true & Know p is unknown [possible if 3/5]

    7. Know p is true [from 6 Simplification]
    TheMadFool

    7 is invalid reasoning, because you drop off an assumption that can't be dropped. You use the effect of this "drop" in the argument later. However, the knowledge that p is true, does not affect whatsoever the fact that p is not known. The two are independent. Not related, yet both apply. Therefore you can't drop one of the two (and you also can't drop both of them).
  • Janus
    15.4k
    Yes, I would think this is non controversial. I was just trying to write it down somewhere, not restart the debate.Olivier5

    Right, but oddly I believe it is still controversial, at least in certain circles. Perhaps that's a testament to how it is possible to become confused by predicate logic in ways that you wouldn't if you thought in plain langauge.
  • InPitzotl
    880
    The seeming paradox is due to adopting a point of view that lays outside of the world of human experience, outside of time and spaceOlivier5
    Hmmm... time... okay:

    Some Python code
    from datetime import datetime
    import random
    import time
    
    random.seed()
    def make_string():
       return ''.join((chr(65+random.randint(0,25)) for n in range(8)))
    
    def generate_samples():
        return sorted([make_string() for n in range(3)])
    
    def generate_proposition():
        x, y, z = generate_samples()
        return f'"{y}" is lexically prior to "{z}" but successive to "{x}".'
    
    def generate_list():
        return [generate_proposition() for n in range(10)]
    
    the_list = generate_list()
    print(f'The current time is {datetime.now()}.')
    time.sleep(60) # Wait one minute prior to exposure to any minds
    for i, n in enumerate(the_list, 1):
        print(f'{i}. {n}')
    


    Its output:

    The current time is 2021-10-01 20:03:44.341319.
    1. "IHLLVJCU" is lexically prior to "VDTSHSGB" but successive to "EPOOTTLS".
    2. "MACVLKEG" is lexically prior to "YGDUUBSU" but successive to "KCQCCFJB".
    3. "RGTVFTLM" is lexically prior to "UHVHSFPG" but successive to "HYQSJOIO".
    4. "MVEXIWWB" is lexically prior to "WWZISWGD" but successive to "HEDIMULP".
    5. "MCCRNUUP" is lexically prior to "RLDYLGBP" but successive to "EMJAPWVJ".
    6. "QMCVNBOO" is lexically prior to "SHXCBJYN" but successive to "BJJZBYPU".
    7. "TDIVFGHM" is lexically prior to "UMJXUXXY" but successive to "JBIVRFWT".
    8. "KEJBOCEO" is lexically prior to "WQKQFLJC" but successive to "HBSLGRPO".
    9. "LIUJYHWQ" is lexically prior to "OUAJAFZK" but successive to "CROCJGNY".
    10. "VCINWCVZ" is lexically prior to "YRLIFYUF" but successive to "NVWXWPXE".

    There are 10 labeled "things" here. I'll pick, I don't know, 6 to talk about. I think 6 is a proposition. I also think it's true. In fact, I'll make a blanket claim. Every time this program is run, if you read what is generated by it, it will be a set of true propositions.

    And yes, I have a mind. And yes, I wrote this program. But I did not write proposition 6.

    Within the boundaries of human experience, a proposition is some statement that someone proposes, at some point in time.Olivier5
    Who wrote proposition 6?
    Within the boundaries of human experience, a proposition is some statement that someone proposes, at some point in time.Olivier5
    Proposition 6 was generated more or less around 10:03:44pm local time on this day October 1, 2021. But nobody proposed it at 10:03:44pm. In fact, nobody read it until it least 10:04:44pm.
    it makes no sense to say that a proposition no one knows about is true.Olivier5
    Why not?
    The proposition needs to exist first.Olivier5
    Not sure what you mean by exist. There is some code that executed at 10:03:44pm. Is that when proposition 6 began to exist?
    Or if you prefer, it could only exist in the mind of God. Or maybe some superpowerful alien... Not in a human mind.Olivier5
    At 10:03:44pm proposition 6 was an encoding of a true statement whose physical form was that of particular stable states of a set of bistable mechanisms. At 10:04:44pm the states began to modulate particular areas of a 4K LG monitor in such a way that a mind belonging to a native English speaker, for the first time, could read it.
    Once it is proposed, then and only then can the question of its truth be asked, and thus be put into existence, and only then, can the question be answered (or not).Olivier5
    I could tell that proposition 6 would be true prior to running the program. I can ask the question of whether proposition 6 would be true of a future run of the program right now. And yes, it will be.
  • EricH
    578

    There are two meanings / usages of the words "true" or "truth." @TheMadFool gave one definition from Wikipedia a few posts back, I'll repeat it:

    "Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.[1] In everyday language, truth is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences."

    This is how the word "truth" is used in the legal system in USA (and I assume most countries). When a witness says that they will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, the witness is swearing that their statements will correspond to reality to the best of their abilities.

    But there is another definition/usage of the words "true" or "truth" - and that is within mathematics / logic. Statements / propositions are true if they can be derived according to the basic axioms of the particular mathematical/logical framework under which they are generated (the basic axioms are defined as true). A particular proposition may be true in one framework and false in another.

    I know that there are some very smart people who believe that mathematics is "real" in some sense of the word, but I'm ignoring that for purposes of this particular discussion.

    So. When I look at the output of the Python program, these lexical strings can be converted into numbers. So when the program prints the output that string "A" is lexically prior to "B", this is simply another way of saying:

    For all integers x & n (where n > 0), x - n is always less than n

    and likewise, when the program prints that "C' is lexically successive to "B", this is

    x + n is always greater than n.

    It seems like all this program is doing is generating random numbers and ordering them according to the the rules of standard arithmetic; i.e., this is within the context of a math framework and is not about the real world.

    But maybe I'm not getting the point (happens on a regular basis)

    = = = = = = = = =
    Meanwhile, how does all this relate to the OP (Fitch's Paradox)? I'm not sure. I'm an amateur at this stuff - but I tried plowing through the Stanford discussion. It's very dense - and truth be told my eyes glazed over fairly quickly. The thing that jumped out at me is that it Fitch seems to mix both definitions of the word "truth": it introduces an "epistemic operator" K which means that β€˜it is known by someone at some time". I can't help but be suspicious of this "epistemic operator" since it entails knowledge of the real world. The article points out various objections to this usage but does not draw any conclusions one way or the other.

    But beyond that, I would disagree with the statement that all "truths" are knowable - i.e. all sentences that correspond with reality are knowable. Given the inflation that happened during the beginnings of the big bang, portions of the physical universe are outside our event horizon and are not knowable. Of course future scientific discoveries could that statement.
  • InPitzotl
    880
    But maybe I'm not getting the point (happens on a regular basis)EricH
    The point here is... well, phrased as a challenge, but really... to get Olivier5 to clarify some of his claims about when propositions exist, where they could possibly come from, and whether or not they really do need a "proposer".
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    If I name it, I make it propositional. But okay, maybe you are right. Truth are description, therefore there is not such thing as an unknown truth.Olivier5

    When we talk about truths. there has to be something which is about reality, that something then checked if it corresponds to reality - if it does, that something is said to be true or is a truth.

    With propositions, we have that something viz. propositions.

    If someone claims truths can be nonpropositional, I'm at a loss as to what it is (the something) that can be true.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    6. Know p is true & Know p is unknown [possible if 3/5]

    7. Know p is true [from 6 Simplification]
    β€” TheMadFool

    7 is invalid reasoning, because you drop off an assumption that can't be dropped. You use the effect of this "drop" in the argument later. However, the knowledge that p is true, does not affect whatsoever the fact that p is not known. The two are independent. Not related, yet both apply. Therefore you can't drop one of the two (and you also can't drop both of them).
    god must be atheist

    So you have complaints about the natural deduction rule simplification. Care to expand on that a bit.

    1. The sun is hot & Grass is green.

    Ergo,

    2. The sun is hot. [1 Simplification]

    Now,

    3. Know p is true & Known p is unknown

    Ergo,

    4. Know p is true [3 Simplification]
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Funny.

    This can only be proven by an example. And if I know the example, then it is impossible to use that example.

    On the other hand, without proof it is acceptable, that the human mind is only capable of some complexity but not of all complexity. For instance, religionists will tell you that god is so complex, that we can't fathom his thoughts. This is an example which has no proof value, but enough creative force to make you see the point.

    The escaping from detection is easier to see. We sense the world and create our thoughts based on our senses. For truth we have to rely on a model of the world which model we built relying on our senses. However, we can't trust our senses. Maybe they relate to use reality, maybe they don't. Thus, all the knowledge and truth we have accumulated about the world and its truhts, may be misguided, and completely off. Again, how does one prove this? It is completely unprovable but totally conceivable.
    god must be atheist

    When we talk about truths. there has to be something which is about reality, that something then checked if it corresponds to reality - if it does, that something is said to be true or is a truth.

    With propositions, we have that something viz. propositions.

    If someone claims truths can be nonpropositional, I'm at a loss as to what it is (the something) that can be true.
    TheMadFool
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    Right. But if truth can only be propositional, then the Fitch is a non starter. Propositions need to be proposed before they can be true or not true. An unknown proposition does not exist.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Right. But if truth can only be propositional, then the Fitch is a non starter. Propositions need to be proposed before they can be true or not true. An unknown proposition does not exist.Olivier5

    S1 = {x: x is a true proposition} = Set S1 is the set of all possible true propositions.

    S1 contains those propositions that have already been made and those that are yet to be made.

    S2 = {x: x is a true proposition that's already made} = Set S2 is the set of already made true propositions.

    Fitch's argument is made with set S1 in mind. In fact, according to Fitch, S1 = S2. There can be no true proposition that's such that it is unknown; in other words, every true proposition is already made and known.
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    1. "IHLLVJCU" is lexically prior to "VDTSHSGB" but successive to "EPOOTTLS".InPitzotl

    You think your machine proposed this proposition? But how can it be, when the machine has no clue what it proposes? The machine just organizes ink on paper or pixels on a screen according to your instructions. It cannot understand what it 'writes'. It doesn't even know what a proposition is. So it ain't proposing anything. YOU, when you read the output, understands it a certain way, to mean a certain thing. You then create the proposition -- understood as a meaningful sentence -- based on what is for the computer just dots on a screen or on paper.
  • InPitzotl
    880
    You think your machine proposed this proposition?Olivier5
    I do? Why then would I write this?:
    Proposition 6 was generated more or less around 10:03:44pm local time on this day October 1, 2021. But nobody proposed it at 10:03:44pm. In fact, nobody read it until it least 10:04:44pm.InPitzotl
    YOU, when you read the output, understands it a certain way, to mean a certain thing.Olivier5
    Yes. At 10:04:44pm.
    You then create the propositionOlivier5
    That's a funny use of the word "create". Incidentally, you also have funny uses of the word "author", "stated", and "phrased":
    Likewise, a statement does not exist before it is stated by some author or another. A phrase does not exist before being phrased.Olivier5
    I did not state proposition 6 at 10:04:44pm. I did not author proposition 6 at 10:04:44pm. I did not phrase proposition 6 at 10:04:44pm. Now, we need not actually interpret the things you say in this quote as being correct, such that we're forced to say the program stated, authored, or phrased proposition 6. You could just be wrong.

    If Bob typed this up:
    11. "PJZVOWMW" is lexically prior to "YEMRBVGD" but successive to "KFJZTEOI"
    ...at 6:51:03am, and I read that at 6:52:03am, I did not create proposition 11.

    What I did at 10:04:44pm is what I would have hypothetically done at 6:52:03am were I to read Bob's proposition 11.
    within human experience, it makes no sense to say that a proposition no one knows about is true.Olivier5
    It makes sense to say that if the program is run at 7:05:00am, it will generate true propositions that no one knows about until 7:06:00am. It makes sense to say this program will generate only true propositions, as opposed to false propositions, as opposed furthermore to all sorts of non-propositions including gibberish.

    It certainly makes a lot more sense than saying that one can author propositions by reading them.

    ETA: Here is roughly what I think I'm doing. You're generally proposing that there's a time relationship here: First, a proposition is proposed by a proposer (and thereby understood). Then, we can ask whether it's true or not. Finally, we can answer it.

    I've arranged a scenario where this is flipped around. First, we can say the propositions will be true. Then, the propositions are created. Only after that, they are read and for the first time understood.
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    S1 contains those propositions that have already been made and those that are yet to be made.TheMadFool

    No, it does not. An unproposed statement cannot be a proposition; at best it is an unproposition.
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    did not state proposition 6 at 10:04:44pm. I did not author proposition 6 at 10:04:44pm. I did not phrase proposition 6 at 10:04:44pm.InPitzotl

    You did take what was a bunch of dots on paper and you did make a proposition out of it by assigning some meaning to it.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    No, it does not. An unproposed statement cannot be a proposition; at best it is an unproposition.Olivier5

    p = a proposition (truth is implied)
    Kp = p is known

    Let's go over this together. The conclusion of Fitch's argument in formal logic is: which in plain English means: all true propositions are known propositions. In other words, all true propositions exist as fully formulated propositions in some mind capable of making propositions and they are known to be true.

    The set of true propositions = The set of made propositions.
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    The key is to remember that a statement not in existence cannot be true or false. It needs to exist first. i.e. be stated. Then and only then can it be assigned a truth value.
  • InPitzotl
    880
    You did take what was a bunch of dots on paperOlivier5
    There was no paper. As mentioned, it was a 4K LG monitor. This actually happened; it was not a thought experiment.
    and you did make a proposition out of it by assigning some meaning to it.Olivier5
    Yes, but more than that. I didn't just read gibberish and just say, you know what, let's call that a label, and attach this meaning to it. I read natural English sentences and interpreted their meaning as I would if Bob himself wrote it.

    If I see an animal walking by, I might look at it and say, "awww, what a cute little fox!" When I do that, I do not create a fox. Nor do I, on saying this, make an animal be a fox. Likewise, when I read proposition 6, I could look at it and say, "awww, what a cute little grammatically correct true English sentence!"
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    The key is to remember that a statement not in existence cannot be true or false. It needs to exist first. i.e. be stated. Then and only then can it be assigned a truth value.Olivier5



    p = a true proposition

    Kp = p is known

    I'm afraid, you'll have to figure this out for yourself. Good luck.
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    ETA: Here is roughly what I think I'm doing. You're generally proposing that there's a time relationship here: First, a proposition is proposed by a proposer (and thereby understood). Then, we can ask whether it's true or not. Finally, we can answer it.

    I've arranged a scenario where this is flipped around. First, we can say the propositions will be true. Then, the propositions are created. Only after that, they are read and for the first time understood.
    InPitzotl

    Indeed, first you define a class of propositions of the type X > Y. This implies the assumption or definition of an ordinal (classified, indexed) set, two different elements if which can always be attributed one and only one of the following propositions: A > B or B> A. Like the set of natural numbers.

    Then you create some code, i.e. a text, that translates all this in a set of instruction a machine can process and chew on. The machine produces an output of the type: X > Y after generating X and Y randomly.

    What the machine does is follow your instructions to generate particular examples of an arbitrary humanly-created ordinal classification system. The machine doesn't even know it's doing that, not anymore than a mechanical clock knows what its needles mean for us.

    Likewise, when I read proposition 6, I could look at it and say, "awww, what a cute little grammatically correct true English sentence!"InPitzotl

    That's a stretch. Your machine-generated "sentences" would strike an odd chord in a natural conversation between people.

    There was no paper. As mentioned, it was a 4K LG monitor. This actually happened; it was not a thought experiment.InPitzotl

    That makes no difference to the argument. The machine doesn't know the meaning of what it writes. It is just arranging pixels on a screen the way you told it to.
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    I figured it out alright: all existing propositions are the ones that are known, one way or another. The ones that have been stated.
  • InPitzotl
    880
    What the machine doesOlivier5
    I still feel like you're playing catch up from your poor reading comprehension skills. You misunderstand even the basic nature of the problem. You keep trying to tell me what the machine isn't doing, as if it solves the problem before you. What you seem to have failed to grasp is that the fact that machine isn't doing things is the problem before you.
    That's a stretch. Your machine-generated "sentences" would strike an odd chord in a natural conversation between people.Olivier5
    You quoted, and therefore are allegedly objecting to, this:
    "awww, what a cute little grammatically correct true English sentence!"InPitzotl
    But proposition 6 (a) is grammatically correct, (b) is English, (c) is true.

    We're still left with a problem. During the minute from 10:03:44 and 10:04:44, there is something that:
    The proposition needs to exist first.Olivier5
    ...it makes sense to say exists (like the fox, before anyone sees it):
    within human experience, it makes no sense to say that a proposition no one knows about is true.Olivier5
    ...that is a proposition, and that is true. This is demonstrated by my ability to meaningfully say that this program generates only true propositions.
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    This is demonstrated by my ability to meaningfully say that this program generates only true propositions.InPitzotl

    Right. So when my little sister's doll used to say "Maman" and "J'ai faim", it was not just playing a recording? It was actually stating the proposition: "I am hungry"? I need to call my sister. It never occured to her that the doll was meaning it.

    And when I use a pen to write on paper, my pen and my paper are the ones doing the writing.

    And when you greet a friend over the telephone, you are actually greeting your telephone.
  • InPitzotl
    880
    So when my little sister's doll used to say "Maman" and "J'ai faim", it was not just playing a recording?Olivier5
    A recording plays back something that happened in the past. Proposition 6 didn't "exist" in any form at all until 10:03:44pm October 1; unless we're appealing to some mathematical sense of existence in which it's a set of the possible set of strings of a certain length of something like that.
    It was actually stating the proposition: "I am hungry"?Olivier5
    "QMCVNBOO" is lexically prior to "SHXCBJYN"; and likewise "QMCVNBOO" is lexically successive to "BJJZBYPU". But your sister's doll isn't hungry.

    You are not even remotely in the ball park of replying to me; you seem obsessed with pinning me on something I explicitly denied in the same post I put the program in. Go back and reread that post.

    In the mean time, let me phrase it this way. At 10:03:44pm, I did not know what proposition 6 was. Nevertheless, I knew it was a proposition, and I knew it was true. So at 10:03:44pm, I can call it a true proposition. None of the things I'm saying in this paragraph have anything to do with your sister's hungry doll or my Dell Inspiron 3847 appreciating English sentences.
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    Okay, it's definitely an interesting / illuminating example so let us dig a bit.

    If my sister's doll was not saying "j'ai faim" but instead "This is a random noise" and would then make a random noise (as she was found to do), it would be exactly like your computer. It would have said things like:

    "This is a random noise: WOOOEEZKREW."
    "This is a random noise: RATABOOM."
    "This is a random noise: POOPOOPIDOO."

    And it would have been right all the f.....g time! Why? Because someone programmed it to produce random noises and say "this is a random noise" in rapid succession.

    The argument of the recording doesn't hold either, because you did record the phrase "is lexically prior to" in your code, and it's the only meaningful part of the output sentences, just like for the doll...
  • InPitzotl
    880
    If my sister's doll was not saying "j'ai faim" but instead "This is a random noise" and would then make a random noise (as she was found to do), it would be exactly like your computer.Olivier5
    This must be some new meaning of "exactly like" that I have been previously unaware of. The way I read "exactly like", it means something like "like in all respects". Given there are six permutations of strings in the template I have, only one of which would formulate a true proposition; and there's only one form in your template; these two things clearly are not "exactly alike". The means by which the one permutation of substitutions applied to the template turns out to be the requisite one to form the true proposition is the call to Python's sorted method. But surely if you recognize that the program doesn't know what the proposition is, you should recognize that the program doesn't know it's sorting those strings.

    But the program doesn't have to know that, because the program isn't calling this a true proposition. I am.
    The argument of the recording doesn't hold either, because you did record the phrase "is lexically prior to" in your code, and it's the only meaningful part of the output sentences, just like for the doll...Olivier5
    That is a red herring. No amount of waffling on about meaningful parts of phrases, including these particular ones, and whether those parts are "recordings" has anything to do with the fact that your sister's doll isn't hungry or the fact that "QMCVNBOO" is lexically prior to "SHXCBJYN".
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    That is a red herringInPitzotl

    It's not. It's the core of my argument that by coding in this phrase "is lexically prior to", you created a pattern your computer would follow to compose sentences that have nothing new in them, that teach us absolutely nothing new. These sentences are mere recordings, and that's all there is to it, in this particular case.

    Even in a more sophisticated case of a program writing poetry, the sentences produced are not actually understood by the machine, and therefore it is hard to say they are proposed by the machine. Rather they are produced mechanically.

    Not all sentences are propositions. Maybe your computer does not really mean it.

    And even if, for the sake of the argument, I accept that my sister's doll really meant what she said and that your computer really proposes something, what problem does that pose exactly?
  • InPitzotl
    880
    It's not. It's the core of my argument that by coding in this phrase "is lexically prior to", you created a pattern your computer would followOlivier5
    But that still has nothing to do with whether propositions are true or false. Consider that we humans repeat things humans say all of the time, at the word and the phrase level; it has nothing to do with whether the thing we're saying is true or false. I'm sorry for you that it's your core argument, because this "argument by reusing parts" shtick is DOA.
    to compose sentences that have nothing new in them,Olivier5
    It is unlikely that proposition 6 has been assigned a truth value in human history prior to 10:03:44pm on October 1.
    These sentences are mere recordings,Olivier5
    Proposition 6 is a statement about the relative ordering of the strings "QMCVNBOO", "SHXCBJYN", and "BJJZBYPU". The first time these three strings were lexically compared in human history is very likely on October 1, 10:03:44pm.
    the sentences produced are not actually understood by the machine, and therefore it is hard to say they are proposed by the machine.Olivier5
    That sounds like a you problem, not a me problem. I didn't say propositions need to be proposed by a proposer. You did.
    Rather they are produced mechanically.Olivier5
    Sure. But out of the 10 propositions displayed by the program's output, 10 out of 10 of them permute the strings in the requisite 1 out of 6 ways for each statement to read as a true proposition, and 0 out of 10 of them permute the strings in the 5 out of 6 ways to read as a false proposition. I can be sure before running the program that this would be the case.

    Insofar as I can be sure these would read as propositions, I don't have to wait until I see them to call them propositions; think of this as my having sufficient reason to categorize these "things" as propositions without direct examination. Insofar as I can be sure they will read as true propositions, I do not have to wait until I see them to call them true propositions. Insofar as I can be sure of both of these things, I can generically say of the program that it will generate true propositions. And that conflicts with your claim that there's no sense in which I can say that (at least by one reading, but it seems to be the one you insist on defending).
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    Consider that we humans repeat things humans say all of the time,InPitzotl

    But we mean it, when we do so. A mere recording or mechanical production of a sentence cannot invest meaning in that sentence. And a sentence without meaning or intention is not a proposition.

    The first time these three strings were lexically compared in human history is very likely on October 1, 10:03:44pm.InPitzotl

    Ok, for the sake of the argument... So what?
  • InPitzotl
    880
    But we mean it, when we do so.Olivier5
    Sure.
    A mere recording or mechanical production of a sentence cannot invest meaning in that sentence.Olivier5
    Mmmm... sort of.

    Person A can write an English sentence on a sheet of paper in the form of a string of some length of English letters, spaces, and punctuation; and "slip this under the door" to Person B in such a way as to communicate meaning to Person B. On doing so, the strings on the slip of paper do not have any inherent meaning; rather, the strings encode meaning in the form of a language... in this case, English.

    Machines can generate strings that have no inherent meaning. Of the strings that have no inherent meaning that machines can generate, some of those are strings that encode meaning in the form of a language. Machines don't need to understand the language or be persons or be proposers or be actors or whatever to produce said strings. The fact that certain strings "are English sentences", some of them "are propositions", and some of them "are true propositions" builds absolutely no fence of any sort preventing machines from generating strings in these categories.
    And a sentence without meaning or intention is not a proposition.Olivier5
    Sure.

    But it does not follow that if a machine produces a string that the string does not convey meaning (e.g., that the string is not an encoding of meaning using the encoding scheme of the English language). Given a particular such string, I can test if it has meaning in English by looking at it and attempting to read it. But this is not the only method I can employ to tell that strings encode meanings in English. Likewise, I can read some statements in English that propose a particular thing to be the case, and on understanding what is being proposed I can test whether the statement actually is true. But once again, this is not the only method I can employ to tell if strings are propositions that are true.

    I've demonstrated another method of doing exactly these two things.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement β€” just fascinating conversations.