On 10/23/2011 06:52 PM, omd wrote: > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Pavitra <celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Mr. Smith, the statement is nonsensical because referring to the >>> Victory Condition of Being Bucky, without quotes, implies that there >>> is such an entity that is a Victory Condition. >> >> A question that presupposes a falsehood may be nonsensical, but a >> statement that presupposes a falsehood is simply false. > > Not really. English statements, unlike logical ones, can presuppose > falsehoods in ways that make them nonsensical. In this case, we don't > know what Bucky is supposed to have satisfied or not satisfied, since > the referent is nonsensical; calling the statement either true or > false would presuppose that it is well-formed. (Reminds me of CFJ > 1799; note that at the time, "nonsensical" and "too vague" were > factors for UNDECIDABLE instead of UNDETERMINED.)
It may be possible, but I don't believe that it is the case here. 1. There is no Victory Condition of Being Bucky. 2. For all X, X is not the Victory Condition of Being Bucky. 3. For all X, it is not the case that both X is the Victory Condition of Being Bucky and Mr. Smith has satisfied X. 4. For all X, it is not the case that Mr. Smith has satisfied the Victory Condition of Being Bucky. 5. Mr. Smith has not satisfied the Victory Condition of Being Bucky. Please explain which step you disagree with.
