[FOM] Solution to Buckner?
Dean Buckner
Dean.Buckner at btopenworld.com
Thu May 8 16:07:12 EDT 2003
Dean:
>The most important constraint embedded in natural
>language is (I believe) that there are no infinite sets, i.e. objects to
>which infinitely many objects bear the "membership relation". I.e. it
>embeds an Axiom of Finity, if you like.
Lucas:
>What about statements like ``all English sentences contain at least one
>word"? On the surface, this seems to involve reference to an infinite
>totality--all English sentences.
No it doesn't. Even if English contained infinitely many words, which I don
't think it does, your sentence just means " Every English sentence contains
at least one word" which means the same as " No English sentence contains
less than one word"
Where's the "infinite totality"?
Lucas:
>Anyway, the fact that the surface structure of these sentences involves
>infinite totalities seems to argue against any such thesis: you have to
>recast them to get a finitistic meaning out of them. But if they have
>no finitistic meaning to begin with (until translated), then how could a
>finitistic being understand them in the first place?
As I said, the surface structure involves no such thing.
As to your second point: in translating a Latin sentence to an English I aim
to replace the Latin one with an English one that has the same meaning.
That's what translation is. So how can something that does not have a
"finitistic" meaning be translated to one that does have a "finitistic"
meaning? If the meaning is not the same, it's not an accurate translation
in the first place. If it is an accurate translation then both, or neither
of them, have a "finitistic" meaning.
Dean Buckner
London
ENGLAND
Work 020 7676 1750
Home 020 8788 4273
More information about the FOM
mailing list