tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post8322182846748739904..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: Textual analysis using pure logicEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-10893384616258857962011-03-11T09:43:37.619+00:002011-03-11T09:43:37.619+00:00Sure. I'm inclined to say Leibniz doesn't...Sure. I'm inclined to say Leibniz doesn't fail. Rather, 'the murderer', 'Shakespeare', are not names of objects.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-45742936723037954382011-03-11T09:30:03.758+00:002011-03-11T09:30:03.758+00:00The question is whether and why Leibniz' law f...The question is whether and why Leibniz' law fails.<br /><br />There are actually two 'laws'. The first is the identity of indiscernibles. The second, which is the one invoked here, is the indiscernibility of identicals.<br /><br />Fa and a=b -> Fb<br /><br />The law says that if you substitute a name for the same object, you preserve truth values.<br /><br />More later.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-20122912793828622262011-03-11T09:16:34.124+00:002011-03-11T09:16:34.124+00:00How would this example be treated in a 'singul...How would this example be treated in a 'singular concept' theory? Presumably we would need n SCs, one per suspect, and a further SC to encapsulate properties of the murderer---'has size 10 shoes', etc etc. If the evidence ever becomes overwhelming that suspect s did it, then at that point SC(s) and SC(m) tend to coalesce. Perhaps the degree of 'overlap' represents our degree of belief that s=m. It's somewhat counterintuitive to think that there are n+1 SCs in action here but it does dissolve the contradiction. And it does seem to reflect how we organise the known facts in our minds, I think.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-46105118297199433792011-03-10T14:43:06.810+00:002011-03-10T14:43:06.810+00:00Excellent! Who is being satirised here I wonder?
...Excellent! Who is being satirised here I wonder?<br /><br />Apologies for being plodding, but I'd like to get clear why this argument fails. Simplified version with fewer historical intangibles: Let 'the murderer' denote whichever suspect killed the victim. There's no doubt the murderer did it but for every suspect there is some doubt as to whether he did it. Seeming contradiction. Conclusion: in our state of ignorance 'the murderer' does not identify an individual. It's a description that floats, as it were, above the suspects but points to none in particular. The sense in which there is no doubt that the murderer killed the victim is that he did so by definition (definition can be fatal!) rather than that the evidence points overwhelmingly towards one particular suspect. Is this close?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.com