[FOM] Godel numbers, use, and mention

mjmurphy 4mjmu at rogers.com
Sat Jun 7 10:06:54 EDT 2003

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Buckner" <Dean.Buckner at btopenworld.com>
To: "fom" <fom at cs.nyu.edu>
Sent: June 5, 2003 2:30 PM
Subject: [FOM] Godel numbers, use, and mention

> M.J.Murphy:
> > Most of us agree with (A) ("It is improbable that Bacon wrote Macbeth")
> because we do >not agree with Shakespeare = Bacon.
> You miss the point.  You can still agree with (A) and (B) and believe that
> Shakespeare = Bacon.  The point is,
> (A) It is improbable that Bacon wrote Macbeth
> (B) It is probable that Shakespeare wrote Macbeth
> does not imply
> (C) Shakespeare <> Bacon
> whereas by Leibniz it should.  That's all.  It may make you happier to put
> "there is strong/weak evidence that" or  "everyone dis/believes that"
> instead of  "It is im/probable that".

Perhaps I still miss the point.  I'm not sure how  "it is probable"
is gives us an opaque context.  How could it be possible to hold A) and B)
and not C)?  Suppose we have Shakespeare in the room with us, and say by
substitution "It is probable that this guy [pointing] wrote Macbeth."  It
sounds like you are saying we could then point to the same guy and say
without contradiction that: "It is improbable that this guy wrote Macbeth."
But I don't see how.  The same thing holds with : "There is strong/weak
evidence that."   Now, "believes" is uncontroversially an opaque context,
and of course what follows from a clause within an opaque context, whether
substitution can take place, whether Liebniz law applies, is an open
question.  Maybe you are just pointing that fact out?

As for the joke concerning joining clubs, you're right it was G. Marx that
said it first.  Woody invokes Groucho at the beginning to Annie Hall (I



More information about the FOM mailing list