[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology, Information Models and the 'Real World': C

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Waclaw Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 20:54:28 +0200
Message-id: <465B2564.8060009@xxxxxxxxxxx>
KCliffer@xxxxxxx wrote:    (01)

> Here, I simply meant that the meaning the proposition had by virtue of 
> its actual (erroneous) words was different (varied) from the intended 
> meaning it would have had without the error. Variation, as we already 
> discussed, can be also due to a difference between the meaning a 
> receiver of a proposition "reads" in a proposition" and the meaning the 
> proposer intended - the same proposition in words might have different 
> meanings for the various players in proposing and receiving it.    (02)

Are you not confusing propositions with syntactic statements?    (03)

> I agree that the truth or falsity is not its meaning, but is rather a 
> degree of correspondence between its meaning and the reality to which 
> its meaning refers.     (04)

Where there are only two degrees, since we are talking about truth and 
falsity.    (05)

> In that sense, its meaning (and also its truth or 
> falsity) also would not actually change over time, if one includes a 
> temporal referent as part of the (implicit, at least) meaning of the 
> proposition - but the meaning interpreted by perceivers over time might 
> change as the context of their interpretation changes, just as the 
> meaning interpreted by different interpreters (including the proposer) 
> might vary at the same time.
> If one allows the actual temporal referent to change with time (e.g. an 
> explicit or implicit "now" is always the time at which the proposition 
> is interpreted), then the meaning implicitly changes with time, as can 
> the truth or falsity.    (06)

This encourages me to ask another question:  do propositions involve 
indexicals?  (Would there be proposition-indexicals?)  Does the 
statement 'he is wise' correspond to a (number of) proposition(s) about 
a particular individual at a particular time each, or can it correspond 
to a proposition which still does not have the 'he'-part resolved?
Can we talk about the proposition denoted by the 'he is wise' statement 
without resolving the indexical first?    (07)

> It's hard for me to imagine a case in which the truth or falsity of a 
> proposition that has a clear implicit or explicit time referent in its 
> meaning can change without its meaning changing, since its 
> correspondence with reality (including a time referent) should not 
> change. Reality should not change, except with time, which would be 
> covered by the time referent in the meaning of the proposition.    (08)

It is not only time that can be referred to by indexicals.  the 
statement 'he is wise' may be (correctly interpreted as) true or false 
at the same time, depending on whom 'he' refers to.    (09)

vQ    (010)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (011)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>