Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 22, 2:44 pm, "Brian Selzer" <br..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
> "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
> [big snip]
> >> I contend that there is a difference between a symbol that represents
> >> something in the universe and a value. If that runs counter to your
> >> particular brand of common-sense, then I sympathize but suggest you adopt
> >> another.
> > Yes, we know that. But you're value = object definition leads to the
> > contradictions:
> I think I should clarify this a bit. I'm probably going to botch this, so
> please bear with me.
> A value is not just an object, but rather the image of
> an object: within the picture of the universe that is under interpretation,
> the value /is/ the object,
There is no such thing as an image of an object. Different view of the world. Different objects altogether. RM is implicitly underpinned by this principal and hence its lack of row identifiers and use of keys (and again this accords with everyday evidence of how we refer to the world). It seems like you are still resolutely avoiding accepting this one - but hell, plato got this sort of thing completely wrong too so I guess at least you're in famous company (...although we do have 2 millenia of combined knowledge on him now).
> but not necessarily in every picture of the
> > * databases then have no values in them.
> Isn't it simpler to say, "I stopped the car." instead of "I applied the
> brakes until the car stopped moving." even though you obviously didn't push
> your feet against the ground like Fred Flintstone?
> Isn't it simpler in the same way to say, "Databases contain values." rather
> than "Databases contain symbols and combinations of symbols that under an
> interpretation map to objects in the universe." even though it is less
A symbol is already defined as "something used for or regarded as representing something else".
> > * to tell someone to enter a value into a spreadsheet cell becomes a
> > nonsense.
> see above.
> > * a mathematical formalism contains no values at all, given it need
> > not refer to anything in the real world.
> What a symbol maps to need not be spatiotemporally located.
> > * etc.
> > This is all counter to everyday experience, and nothing to do with my
> > common sense. It is just not good enough to ignore the actual use of a
> > word.
> I don't think it is. The context of this discussion demands a level of
> precision that is not required in the contexts you cited.
Noone needs an imaginary concept of "images of objects", and so we equally don't need some curveball redefinition of "value" by which to refer to them.
> A proposition is
> just a collection of symbols combined according to some grammar that can be
> assigned a truth value. Neither the proposition nor the symbols and
> combinations of symbols contained within convey meaning until under an
> interpretation a truth value has been assigned. A database is just a
> proposition that is supposed to be true, but supposing a particular truth
> value is not the same as assigning that truth value. As a consequence, a
> database is just a collection of symbols combined according to some grammar
> that can be assigned a truth value. It only becomes a collection of values
> under an interpretation as that truth value is assigned.
Yes but the point is that you've just made all this up, and it is nothing like how anyone else uses the term. As yet another example consider the output of a mathematical function. It is unarguably a value whether it is interpreted or not.
Received on Tue Jul 22 2008 - 17:19:18 CEST