(oops sent this straight to falsifian the first time.) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, June 1, 2020 10:05 PM, nch <nchag...@protonmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 1, 2020 9:44:27 PM CDT you wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 01:57, nch via agora-discussion > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org wrote: > > > > > On Monday, June 1, 2020 8:46:09 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > > > Isn't that still a difference in intended meaning? Maybe I didn't > > > > phrase it clearly enough the first time, but my intended meaning was > > > > "Right now at the moment I'm calling this CFJ, the truth value > > > > (true/false) of 'Falsifian owns at least one blot' equals the truth > > > > value of 'English Wikipedia has an article titled "Sponge"'". > > > > > > If you had used "right now" or "currently" I'd agree with your reading, > > > see > > > below. > > > > > > > Also, CFJ statements about things like "Alice owns a blot" are usually > > > > assumed to be about the current situation at the time the statement > > > > was called. Are you saying the words "if and only if" override that > > > > default, and lead you interpret my statement as encompassing other > > > > times and/or situations other than the current one? Or am I > > > > misunderstanding your argument? > > > > > > There's no "override". In "Alice owns a blot" there's no ambiguity about > > > whether that statement is present progressive. When you introduce a modal, > > > you also introduce an ambiguity: now the sentence could be present > > > progressive or it could be conditional, which can refer to an "always" > > > time frame or a "currently" time frame without clarity. My honest first > > > take of your CFJ was a conditional always time frame. > > > -- > > > nch > > > > I think I have some linguistics to learn. I think a quick web search > > has taught me what the "present progressive" tense is, but I'm not > > sure I've grokked what a modal is. > > Modals are basically conditionals. It's more complex than that of course but > that's the quick and dirty. They cover possibility of truth or permission of > action. Also see modal logic, which extends classical logic with possible > worlds. > > > I do see that the "if and only if" wording opens the door to another > > interpretation. Interpreting it that way feels a little odd to me, but > > maybe that's because my intended meaning is still stuck firmly in my > > mind. > > Keep in mind that word choice, even where it's synonymous in a vacuum, conveys > meaning. This is a feature of language, we unconsciously assume speakers are > efficient and pragmatic and when expectations are broken it conveys additional > meaning. You used "if and only if" where I would normally use "and". So my > first thought was that you were focusing on something special about the > biconditional. In this case, its implication that the two facts are > meaningfully connected to each other. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > nch
