ONT Re: Model Theory
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
JA = Jon Awbrey
JC = John Collier
JA: Aside from that, my point is that there are many different kinds of meaning
besides the straightforward denotative sort -- just for instance, there is
the "functional" meaning of rites and rotes, in the original sociological
sense of the word "functional", not the more recent inversion of it.
So, the fact that you tried to use this example to illustrate some
point means that it had some meaning to you, otherwise there would
have been no quantum of motivation sufficient to the attempt.
JC: I would agree that there is meaning in my giving the example, but
I would not agree the there is meaning in the example itself.
It is my interest to classify the dimensions of meaning that actually are.
This is just a routine component of a greater objective, one that a wise
person once described in the following wise:
| I think it is important to understand what scientists are actually doing,
| not just what they think they are doing, or what they are trying to do.
JC: Another case is the smile of the Chesire cat from the Alice books.
It makes sense of a sort in the context of the Dodgson's nonsense books,
but specifically because it is nonsense. It does have connotative meaning,
but this is always contextual. I realize you may well reply that all meaning
is contextual, but my position all along has been that it is not for complete
logical systems.
I no longer have the context that I'd need to know what the particular interpreter
I am addressing intends by the words "complete logical system", as he has pulled
the rug of my prior assumptions out from under me with that last phoney example.
Mathematics is filled with all sorts of mathematical objects and systems that
are little more than a "set with a modest provision of structure" (SWAMPOS).
You can pick any old SWAMPOS at random and call it a "logic" if you wish --
so what? Unless we take the question seriously "What is a logic for?"
it is all just so much chasing of will o'th' wisps.
JC: Again, I think we have reached the point where
we clearly disagree, and I am content with that.
Is that your final definition of "content"?
JC: There various people I have cited were cited not as authorities per se
in our dispute, but as evidence that there are logicians who do not
take the meaningless formalism view of mathematics and logic.
I am confused now -- was I supposed to be defending Formalism?
JC: Raymond Smullyan is another. I recommended his book, 'The Tao is Silent'
some time before you joined the list, in the context of trying to explain
my views on the connection between logic and my own views on causality.
Have read pretty much all of his books.
My favorite: 'To Mock a Mockingbird'.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤