Plato's Beard

axocanth said:
First, see above.

I don't see the presupposition you suggest. We can toss out descriptions willy-nilly. Some of them will be satisfied by something real out there; others won't.

Cf. "the highest prime number"
Click to expand...
They seem to think they have come up with the highest known prime number. So it seems to be describable. Are there higher ones? Who knows? Does a mere designator like "highest prime number" count as a description?

 
Magical Realist said:
I looked up the standard definition of "unicorn" and it largely defined it as an imaginary or mythical horse with a single horn. But this doesn't really resolve our problem. Can an imaginary/mythical being even be such a horse? Horses we generally agree exist. But to be a unicorn is to not exist. How can a horse both exist and not exist at the same time?
Click to expand...
It's not a horse. Calling this imaginary object a horse with a horn is just a way for you to picture what is being imagined.

If I see a cloud that looks to me like an elephant are you confused as to how it can be both an elephant and float in the sky?
 
Magical Realist said:
I cheated and looked up the definition of gravity. It's largely defined as the force of attraction between objects made of matter. But I know modern physicists have problems with calling it a force in the Newtonian sense. Does the word gravity refer to something that exists.? Maybe not.
Click to expand...

Yes, that would have been the description associated with the word "gravity" by Newton and his followers.

As far as I understand, since relativity, most physicists no longer believe there is such a force. Thus the Newtonian description of "gravity" is not satisfied, and on a descriptive theory of reference, the Newtonians' use of the word "gravity" fails to refer. They are quite literally talking about nothing. Might as well have been talking about unicorns!

Clearly, most scientists would be unwilling to accept this result. They'd prefer to say "Newton had a few false beliefs about gravity, nonetheless, Einstein and he are talking about the same thing."

To justify such a view, then, some alternative account of reference has to be invoked.
 
If I see a cloud that looks to me like an elephant are you confused as to how it can be both an elephant and float in the sky?
Click to expand...

If I see a cloud that is shaped like an elephant I am still seeing a cloud. OTOH if I'm seeing a unicorn that doesn't exist then I'm probably hallucinating!
 
Magical Realist said:
They seem to think they have come up with the highest known prime number. So it seems to be describable. Are there higher ones? Who knows? Does a mere designator like "highest prime number" count as a description?

Click to expand...

Note I said "the highest prime number" and not "the highest known prime number".

I'm no expert, but I thought it had been proven that there is no highest prime number. Right?

If that is the case then the definite description "the highest prime number" fails to refer. There is no such thing.

Getting right back to the OP, the expression is meaningful (we can all understand it), but does not refer.
 
axocanth said:
Clearly, most scientists would be unwilling to accept this result. They'd prefer to say "Newton had a few false beliefs about gravity, nonetheless, Einstein and he are talking about the same thing."

To justify such a view, then, some alternative account of reference has to be invoked.
Click to expand...


Compare . . .

"When I speak of unicorns and you speak of horses, we're actually talking about the same thing."

Are we? If not, why not?
 
Seattle said:
It's not a horse. Calling this imaginary object a horse with a horn is just a way for you to picture what is being imagined. [There is no such thing as a unicorn - axo]
Click to expand...

Cf.

"It's not gravity. Calling this thing an attractive force which acts instantaneously is just a way for you to picture what is being imagined. There is no such thing as Newtonian gravity."
 
Getting right back to the OP, the expression is meaningful (we can all understand it), but does not refer.
Click to expand...

Which is the heart of the paradox imo. How can we make meaningful statements about things that don't exist?
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Which is the heart of the paradox imo. How can we make meaningful statements about things that don't exist?
Click to expand...


Here's one answer:

We can make meaningful statements. But they're not about unicorns, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. The subject term does not refer. The statements are not literally about anything. There is nothing there to say anything about.

Cf.

Axo: "I met a guy in the bar last night who was 5 miles tall."

MR: "Who are you talking about?"


You tell me!
 
Magical Realist said:
Does the word gravity refer to something that exists.? Maybe not.
Click to expand...

On a descriptive theory of reference, to repeat, if the description (cf. definition) associated with a word is satisfied, then the word refers.

So, if "an attractive force that acts instantaneously" is satisfied by anything in reality, the word "gravity" as used by Newton et al refers. Gravity exists. Newton is talking about something real. If the description is not satisfied -- as many contemporary physicists believe -- then Newton is talking about nothing.

Same applies to "the curvature of spacetime" and "horse-like creature with a single horn".



Edit: All the above descriptions are meaningful. Whether they have a referent or not is an empirical matter.
 
Axo: "I met a guy in the bar last night who was 5 miles tall."

MR: "Who are you talking about?"
Click to expand...

But if there is nothing that "a guy in the bar last night who was 5 miles tall" refers too, then your statement is equivalent to saying "I met someone who doesn't exist." That's doesn't seem to me to be a meaningful statement.
 
Magical Realist said:
But if there is nothing that "a guy in the bar last night who was 5 miles tall" refers too, then your statement is equivalent to saying "I met someone who doesn't exist." That's doesn't seem to me to be a meaningful statement.
Click to expand...

Not meaningful? You can't understand what is being said?
 
Magical Realist said:
But if there is nothing that "a guy in the bar last night who was 5 miles tall" refers too, then your statement is equivalent to saying "I met someone who doesn't exist." That's doesn't seem to me to be a meaningful statement.
Click to expand...

I don't think they're equivalent at all.

Was Newton saying "I have a theory about something that doesn't exist"?
 
Perhaps switching to phlogiston is safer to health lol.

Proponents of phlogiston theory were certainly not asserting "We have a theory about something that doesn't exist".

Of course, we now believe they had a theory about nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top