🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 5, 6:41 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@xortec.fi>
wrote:
> On 2008-05-05, in sci.logic, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>
> > Also, your definition 2 doesn't accomplish anything. You're
> > explaining the predicate "is true" in terms of the predicate
> > "corresponds to an actual state of affairs". But that phrase
> > is no better defined than "is true". Which sentences correspond
> > to an actual state of affairs, and which don't?
>
> "In order to tell whether a picture is true or false we must compare it
> with reality..." -- just like to tell whether a portrait is true we
> must have a peek at the person it depicts. Admittedly it's a bit
> obscure what this might amount to in case of such sentences as
>
>  A sentence is meaningful if and only if it is a picture of a possible
>  state of affairs.
>
>  It is instructive to consider the first incompleteness theorem in
>  a purely recursion theoretic formulation.
>
>  The doctrine that a meaningful sentence is a picture of a possible
>  state of affairs is erudite.
>
>  Newberry is confused on matters logical.

Why is the meaning of this sentence problematic? I think it is not
very difficult to imagine a person such as Newberry acting and talking
confused, or even the mental state of a person being confused.

> and so on.
>
> --
> Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...@xortec.fi)
>
> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
>  - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus