numbers vs. words

@Extrain,

[INDENT]If there were no vegetables that you ate, then "I ate all my vegetables this morning" is simply false. There is no other way around it. So I don't see what the problem is.
[/INDENT]But I ate every one that was there on my plate. All zero of them! So, I am not implying that I ate when I say that I ate all the vegetables on my plate this morning, nor am I implying that I ate vegatables. Heck, I'm not even implying that I had a plate.

@fast,

fast;160025 wrote:

[INDENT]If there were no vegetables that you ate, then "I ate all my vegetables this morning" is simply false. There is no other way around it. So I don't see what the problem is.
[/INDENT]But I ate every one that was there on my plate. All zero of them!

This is contradictory. You are saying you ate vegetables which didn't exist. Something tells me you are getting past and present tenses mixed up.

[QUOTE=fast;160025]So, I am not implying that I ate when I say that I ate all the vegetables on my plate this morning, nor am I implying that I ate vegatables. Heck, I'm not even implying that I had a plate.[/QUOTE]But if you want your statement to be true, and have it say anything at all, then this IS what you are implying--otherwise, you are not saying anything by uttering that statement! What's the problem? Again, you are confusing truth with logical validity!

@Extrain,

Extrain;160027 wrote:

This is contradictory. You are saying you ate vegetables which didn't exist.

I'm not saying I ate vegables. You keep saying that I am. I never agreed that saying "I ate every vegetable on my plate this morning" implies that I ate. You said it did.

@fast,

fast;160034 wrote:

I'm not saying I ate vegables. You keep saying that I am. I never agreed that saying "I ate every vegetable on my plate this morning" implies that I ate. You said it did.

I don't even know what you are talking about. This is nonsense. If you say "I ate vegetables" then you said, "I ate vegetables."

If "I ate vegetables" expresses a proposition and is true, then "I ate" is true--and it logically follows. If "I ate vegetables" is true, then "There were some vegetables I ate" is true--this also logically follows.

I could care less what your private intentions are by uttering "I ate vegetables." Maybe you don't want to express a truth-valuable proposition at all by uttering those words, and that's fine with me, but it makes no difference to validity and truth if there is a proposition those words express.

@cws910,

cws910;116362 wrote:

Today we tend to describe the world using numbers. Because of that we can bring beauty down to a set of numbers, life down to a four line equasion, etc. But is this the best way to describe the traits and patterns of the world? Inthe case of beauty, we can define bit with numbers, but we can't CREATE it. But with words, we can truly create beauty; we can describe the elements of life and we also can explore that which numbers cannot. Death, reality, and love. So what do you guys think?

The entire spectrum of emotions are different to other people, hence the timeless epigram "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". The same image of the sun setting could evoke two different emotions from two people; One with sorrow the other with joy. Numbers and equations bring the absolute truth... as to how people want to distort the reality is what words is good for :whistling: . "is the cup is half full or half empty?"

@Extrain,

[QUOTE=Extrain;160036]I don't know what the hell you are talking about. This is nonsense. If you say "I ate vegetables" then you said, "I ate vegetables."[/QUOTE]Exactly. But, why do you think I'm saying that I ate vegetables when clearly what I'm saying is, "I ate every vegetable on my plate?" The answer is because you think the latter implies the former. You, you, you. Not me. You are taking what I am saying and failing to realize that what I'm saying equates to: If there were any vegetables on my plate, then I ate every one of them.

@fast,

fast;160052 wrote:

Exactly. But, why do you think I'm saying that I ate vegetables when clearly what I'm saying is, "I ate every vegetable on my plate?" The answer is because you think the latter implies the former. You, you, you. Not me. You are taking what I am saying and failing to realize that what I'm saying equates to: If there were any vegetables on my plate, then I ate every one of them.

Slow down. In logic, you have to be very careful what you are saying. Now you are saying if there were any vegetables on my plate, then I at every vegetable on my plate. The former can be true while the latter is false. But the truth of the latter contradicts the falsity of the former since the latter logically implies there were vegetables on your plate that you did, in fact, eat...since if "I ate every vegetable on my plate" is true, then "I ate at least one vegetable on my plate" is true. In logic, the former does imply the latter. You and Ken are mistaking "I ate every vegetable on my plate" as a universal generalization of the form of "All P are Q." But it is not. "I ate every vegetable on my plate" is a RELATION between a person and every vegetable on the plate. In logic, It is saying,

"There is someone who ate each and every vegetable on his plate." The "all" or "every" takes a distributive reading, not a general reading.

This is the ambiguity of natural language I was telling you that you have to watch out for. Logic trains you to recognize these things.

Take this example: "Someone loves everybody."

R=loves. Logic tells you to translate this as,

EyAx R(y,x)

So suppose Bob loves Jane, Susie, and Heather. Then the following is true for each loving relation that Bob stands to Jane, Susie, and Heather.

EyEx R(y,x).

And suppose Bob, Jane, Susie, and Heather are the only people who exist. So Bob loves everyone implies,

Bob loves Bob, Bob loves Jane, Bob loves Susie, Bob loves Heather...

Bob would not stand in the loving relation to Jane if Jane did not exist. The same is true for the others. And Bob would not stand in the loving relation to everyone if he did not love someone or other. The same is true for eating each and every vegetable.

@cws910,

"All the vegetables on my plate were the vegetables eaten by me" does not imply there were any vegetables on my plate. Therefore, "No vegetables were eaten by me" is consistent with that statement. QED

---------- Post added 05-05-2010 at 06:26 PM ----------

fast;160052 wrote:

Exactly. But, why do you think I'm saying that I ate vegetables when clearly what I'm saying is, "I ate every vegetable on my plate?" The answer is because you think the latter implies the former. You, you, you. Not me. You are taking what I am saying and failing to realize that what I'm saying equates to: If there were any vegetables on my plate, then I ate every one of them.

The if clause muddies things up. The truth is that all the vegetables on the plate were eaten by me. That's it.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;160632 wrote:

"All the vegetables on my plate were the vegetables eaten by me" does not imply there were any vegetables on my plate. Therefore, "No vegetables were eaten by me" is consistent with that statement. QED

No offense, but this is terribly sloppy logic. There is an appropriate and inappropriate logical translation of natural language sentences.

First of all, what you say is false. "All P are Q" is inconsistent with "No P are Q."

Second, on the one hand, one might try universally quantifying the statement one way when it is expressed like you expressed it, such as, "All the vegetables on my plate were the vegetables eaten by me." So it is appropriate to apply the "All P are Q" schema to this sentence.

On the other hand, "Each and every vegetable was eaten by me" does logically imply there were existent vegetables because "eating" is a relation between myself and what I ate, namely each and every vegetable. The relation of eating would not hold between myself and each vegetable if no vegetables existed. So existing vegetables are a necessary condition for this statement to be true.

@Extrain,

Hi all,
I ate vegetables this morning, but my friend said, I ate fish - When I asked my friend, what do you mean?
He replied "How the hell should I know? I've just been looking on the philosophy forum< now I'm insane"

Thank you and fare well

Mark...

@Extrain,

I wondered if the author of this post who refers to Rundle's 'Grammar in Philosophy' knew if there was any anticipatory connection between Rundle's handling of the clausal component of that-clauses and Davidson's well known handling of them in 'On Saying That'. (I don't know over what period Rundle's material was produced prior to publication; likewise for Davidson—or is Prior a common source?)

Philosophy Forum

numbers vs. words

Quick Links

My Account

able2know