Michael

There are really two parts to this discussion. The first concerns the dispute between platonism and conceptualism – are propositions mind-independent ...

I don't think I am. Take "there are unuttered propositions" which I compared to "there are unborn babies". That there are unborn babies just is that n...

Yes, it makes no difference. Either way, platonism is wrong and truth- and falsehood-predication only makes sense when the object predicated as either...

I am saying that the number of true assertions that have been made is finite, that the number of false assertions that have been made is finite, that ...

Only in the trivial sense that there are unborn babies. That's a contradiction. You can't show that there are unuttered propositions by uttering a pro...

No he didn't. I'm not saying that they're the very same. I'm saying that if there are no utterances then there are no propositions, i.e. that platonis...

I haven't claimed otherwise. I've only claimed that the only things that can be true or false are the things we say (which I'm using as a catch-all fo...

I don't see how that answers my question.

Sure, but there are no sentences if there are no utterances, there are no statements if there are no utterances, there are no propositions if there ar...

And how does this work with the case of "1 + 1 = 3" being false? We certainly can't say that the fact that 1 + 1 = 3 is false. So if you want to say t...

This second order predication is still a sentence that you have written and have described using the adjective "true", and asserting that it is true e...

Well you've just said it now? Are you perhaps suggesting that it was true before you said it? What does the word "it" here refer to? Does it refer to ...

A platonist does, but I don't think that a realist must be a platonist. A realist can be a non-platonist by accepting that only the things we say are ...

I also don't think that a painting is accurate until someone has painted it. But that's because a painting being accurate (or inaccurate) before it is...

There wasn't a sentence before it was uttered. The anti-realist (at least of Dummett's kind) says that if a sentence is true then it's possible to kno...

This can mean one of two things: 1. Are there no minds in World B? 2. Is "there are no minds in World B" true? The answer to both is "yes". And as the...

I'm not tying myself in knots. I'm making this very simple observation: /uploads/resized/files/79/l1ga9drsheed41u0.png There are no truths in World B ...

Given that nothing true is being said in a world without minds, nothing is true in a world without minds. But something true is being said in the actu...

This line of discussion started from this comment of mine: In even simpler terms, there is gold in Boorara even if nothing is being said but there are...

Yes, as it was always meant to be. It was a simple remark about how people were being imprecise with their use of the terms "true" and "truth". I thou...

I didn't say that saying things is all there is to truth and falsity. I said that saying true and false things is all there is to truth and falsity. T...

It doesn't. We simply say true or false things or we don't, and that's all there is to truth and falsity. Your suggestion that there are truths in Wor...

Yes, precisely. I'm only saying that truth is a property of propositions and that there are no true propositions (truths) in a world without language ...

Maybe this diagram is easier to understand. The quoted sentences represent true (blue) and false (red) propositions. /uploads/resized/files/pw/lwxiyw6...

No, it should be: "There is gold" is true at A, "There is gold" is true at A-H. "There is gold" is true in A. "There is gold" doesn't exist in A-H. Yo...

Well, it's a bad thing if platonism is wrong, which I think it is, and as Banno has claimed to be a mathematical antirealist I take him to be an anti-...

Maybe the issue is that you and I have very different interpretations of the difference between truth in a world and truth at a world. All I mean is t...

Okay, but what does that have to do with T_I? My claim is that nothing is T_I relative to a world without language but that some things are T_@ relati...

That's not what's happening. All that's happening is that I'm explaining that there is a difference between T_I ("truth in") and T_@ ("truth at"), and...

Then you're not addressing what I'm saying, because those are all I'm saying.

Then perhaps you can tell me which, if either, of these you disagree with? 1. "a truth" means "a true sentence" 2. Sentences are not mind-independent ...

With what? The problem as I see it as that you and others think I'm saying something I'm not and now you're criticising me for not defending what I'm ...

What insane interpretation? I am simply making two simple claims: 1. "a truth" means "a true sentence" 2. Sentences are not mind-independent abstract ...

This is the kind of thing I am arguing against: I am saying that a truth is a true sentence, much like a falsehood is a false sentence, and that, cont...

Yes, that's the point I have been trying to make for over a week. If you're referring to C2 and C3 here, I do explain how we avoid them. I don't think...

I am simply saying that truth is a property of truth-bearers and that truth-bearers are features of language (i.e. platonism is wrong), and so therefo...

I know. If the proposition "there is gold" is true in that world then platonism is correct, and I do not believe that platonism is correct. If platoni...

I'm repeating it because you don't seem to be addressing it. You seem to think I'm saying something I'm not and addressing that instead. From Truth in...

Yes, we’re not saying many true things in the present. But there are many mountains and planets and so on.

And the set of truth bearers in a world without language is empty. Therefore if truth is a property of truth bearers then the set of truths in a world...

One of these is false: 1. Particles cannot influence one another faster than the speed of light (locality) 2. Particles have well defined properties b...

That's an ambiguous question. Given that no King of France exists, a case can be made that "the King of France is bald" is neither true nor false, and...

What about it?

You appear to be switching between truths in a world and truths at a world, given that you start by saying that there is no sentence that is either tr...

I didn't say it. I just quoted the IEP article on brains in a vat: It's not my "idiosyncratically defined" anti-realism. It just is what anti-realism ...

@"Banno", @"Janus", @"Srap Tasmaner" A painting of a mountain is accurate or inaccurate (allowing for degree). A description of a mountain is true or ...

You talked before about truth being a relation between a sentence and something else in the world. Well, there is only a relation between a sentence a...

I really think that this post (also from six days ago) is pretty clear.

There aren't any. This was never meant as some deep, substantive philosophical point. I was simply explaining the ordinary grammar of the word "true"....

Here's a post of mine from six days ago: