[FRIAM] lockdowns

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

I mean ... [sigh] ... if we take these meta-statements seriously, we can imagine someone promoting an attribute to a property ... something like reification. The setup of a proposition {P} and a meta-proposition like {P is True} is too loaded. It would be easier to take something like {Apple} and {Apple is Green}. Green is a humble attribute, unlike the aggressive True. Promoting Green from an attribute to a property is more acceptable because of that humility. A contrarian can in good faith say, no apples are red. Or a color-blind person can say, no apples are gray#7. Or whatever.

But when some arrogant snot runs around saying {P is True}, we don't even know where to begin. There is no common ground from which to start. At the very least, those who want to claim things like {P is True} could be generous and relax it a bit to {P is Consistent with L}, where L is some language. Then maybe we could say {P is True}_L or something.

I know L is inferable from the subject line, the context of Dave's OP, etc. But man, it's a lot of work to do that inferring and the subsequent error correction in straw-steel-etc effigification. 

On 4/7/21 1:08 PM, jon zingale wrote:
> Oh, let me comprehend the ways.


-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ