It is called "Wall after wall" by a band called Slabmatic. The singer (Lisa Kirby (RIP)) was in a slightly less obscure band called Blood and Roses and sometimes it is incorrectly ascribed to them.
Adequacy = suffices for an end. It's relative to our end. A physical theory may be adequate to predicting, but inadequate to metaphysics as it is based on a model, not reality. As all human knowledge is partial, a projection of reality, it suffices for some ends, but not others. Our concept of reality is based on reliable experience. Referencing reality means reflecting a possible experience. Sentences w/o an experiential foundation are meaningless. The argument is abbreviated to fit. Peace, DP
I have to admit that I would struggle very much with this presentation if English wasn't my 1st language. Tarski's argument can be quite subtle. I have tried to make it as clear as I can given that it is a brief and therefore condensed explanation but is there something specific that is confusing you? People often struggle with the point that Tarski is trying to give a non-trivial account of how truth could underpin a formal language not least by disallowing many vague sentences that are common in natural languages.
Languages can allow assertions about the truth or falsity of some, without allowing them for all, sentences. E.g., in English, "A is colored" is true, false, or nonsense. It is nonsense (a category error) if A names something that can't be colored. Similarly, as truth is the adequacy of intellect to reality, it is a category error to predicate truth or falsity of sentences that don't reference reality, as in the liar paradox. Thus, realism requires no meta-lingusitic constructs. Peace, Dennis
Could you please define 'the adequacy of intellect to reality', both objectively and in the context you used it? Also, please give us a formula for distinguishing those sentences which "reference reality" from those which do not? Finally, your conclusion that "realism requires no meta-linguistic constructs" does not follow from your premises. Your argument is, therefore, invalid. Peace, Daniel
background music killed it in a bad way
This explains so much.Thanks, good music as well.
It is called "Wall after wall" by a band called Slabmatic. The singer (Lisa Kirby (RIP)) was in a slightly less obscure band called Blood and Roses and sometimes it is incorrectly ascribed to them.
How can anyone read this and concentrate with that bloody music? LOL
Adequacy = suffices for an end. It's relative to our end. A physical theory may be adequate to predicting, but inadequate to metaphysics as it is based on a model, not reality. As all human knowledge is partial, a projection of reality, it suffices for some ends, but not others.
Our concept of reality is based on reliable experience. Referencing reality means reflecting a possible experience. Sentences w/o an experiential foundation are meaningless.
The argument is abbreviated to fit.
Peace, DP
They complicate things and let us struggling here
I have to admit that I would struggle very much with this presentation if English wasn't my 1st language. Tarski's argument can be quite subtle. I have tried to make it as clear as I can given that it is a brief and therefore condensed explanation but is there something specific that is confusing you? People often struggle with the point that Tarski is trying to give a non-trivial account of how truth could underpin a formal language not least by disallowing many vague sentences that are common in natural languages.
good understanding. how is this tarskian semantics different from herbrand semantics?
Languages can allow assertions about the truth or falsity of some, without allowing them for all, sentences. E.g., in English, "A is colored" is true, false, or nonsense. It is nonsense (a category error) if A names something that can't be colored. Similarly, as truth is the adequacy of intellect to reality, it is a category error to predicate truth or falsity of sentences that don't reference reality, as in the liar paradox. Thus, realism requires no meta-lingusitic constructs. Peace, Dennis
Alfred TARDSKY
hey, whats the song ?
Could you please define 'the adequacy of intellect to reality', both objectively and in the context you used it? Also, please give us a formula for distinguishing those sentences which "reference reality" from those which do not? Finally, your conclusion that "realism requires no meta-linguistic constructs" does not follow from your premises. Your argument is, therefore, invalid. Peace, Daniel
How the hell can anyone keep their attention? The music sucks! All I can think is that it serves as some type of postmodern game...