= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Esar comments on The Useful Idea of Truth - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (513)
It seems like your view means that, for example, none of the sentences written in Linear A (a lost language) are either true or false. Yet, when they were written, they were (some of them at least) true or false. And were we to find a translation key like the Rosetta stone for Linear A, they would once again become true or false. Suppose one of the sentences we translate comes out to "Crete is rocky and dry". When it was written, it was true. It is true now. But for three thousand intervening years, this sentence was meaningless?
That's weird.
It was not meaningless within the model that you describe (see one-place vs two-place functions): Linear A is a language which supports sentences equivalent to English "Crete is rocky and dry". Whether this model is a good one will be determined when the translation key is found.
A translation key is only possible if it is a good model (though I also think all languages are necessarily inter-translatable).