Exact Meaning versus Using Facts to Hint at Meaning

[PseuTonym]

A worldly example might help.

Suppose that when you earn money or spend money, you use US dollars. Suppose you anticipate that a particular currency (different from the US dollar) will collapse relative to the US dollar within the next few years. You were planning to go into debt anyway, such as to go to school. A bank lends you money in the currency that you anticipate will collapse, and you enter into a legal contract to pay back the money (plus interest) in the same currency. Then you use what you borrowed to buy US dollars.

Now, at any given time, somebody might say that you owe so many US dollars. That could be an estimate based on recent currency exchange rates. The reality is that you owe a specified number of units of a currency that is not US dollars.

 

[blase6]

Basically you owe money. The different forms of currency have different arbitrary numerical values, from which exchange rates are made based on how much worth human beings assign to the currency.

So the “US dollar, Canadian dollar, etc.” in this case function as units of measurement for an underlying pecuniary debt.

I’m not sure what you are trying to show by this.

 

[seagal]

I’m not sure what you are trying to show by this.

Ditto. Are you trying to mislead someone? Or are you wondering if it’s lying to say one amount when it’s actually a little more complicated? Seems to me the only one who would be concerned about the exact amount of money you owe would be your financial institution, or someone who needs to know your credit rating. What’s your real question?

 

[PseuTonym]

What’s your real question?

I claim that there is an important difference between identifying an exact meaning and using facts to hint at a meaning. It’s not a question, but I could ask people whether or not they agree with my claim, and then I would have a question.

Let us suppose that you try to define arithmetic operations of addition and multiplication of positive, whole numbers in terms of how physical objects behave. In that case, you have committed yourself to saying that what Jesus did with the loaves of bread and the fish violated not only the laws of nature, but also the laws of arithmetic. Of course, that is absurd. Counting physical objects is merely one application of arithmetic. Even a miracle would not change facts about numbers.

 

[seagal]

Of course there’s a difference, the question is, is the difference important. Only if you’re in confession or interrogating someone. I’m still not sure if this question is about telling the truth (which is always important) or giving exact information (which may be important or irrelevant).

Let us suppose that you try to define arithmetic operations of addition and multiplication of positive, whole numbers in terms of how physical objects behave. In that case, you have committed yourself to saying that what Jesus did with the loaves of bread and the fish violated not only the laws of nature, but also the laws of arithmetic. Of course, that is absurd. Counting physical objects is merely one application of arithmetic. Even a miracle would not change facts about numbers.

I don’t see how anyone could call the miracle of the loaves and fishes a violation of the laws of arithmetic because, as you say, the facts about numbers remain the same.

 

[PseuTonym]

Of course there’s a difference

In other words, you agree with me. However, somebody else might say that we are both simply playing a game. That we agree implies that we have a belief in common, and does not necessarily imply that we are both correct.

If you are interested in the opinions of other people besides me and you, then you can trace a train of thought beginning here:

Thread title:
Re: Problems with free will, possibility, and causality
Link to post in thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12622430&postcount=136

Thread title:
Do you agree that an axiom is not merely a conjecture that is accepted by the vast majority of educated people?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=933736

Thread title:
A parable: how the magnetic compass solved a linguistic, semantic, and semiotic crisis

(presuming standard definitions, ‘left’ being on the side of one’s heart, and ‘right’ being the other side).

Link to post in thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12695301&postcount=8

OK, I see the game you’re playing.

Link to post in thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12697602&postcount=11

 

[seagal]

Thank you for the invite, but those kinds of thought experiments aren’t really my thing. Have fun

 

[PseuTonym]

Another example might be helpful. It emerged in a thread that some people might not have anticipated would generate any clarifying examples or explanations of anything.

Consider the following choices:
#1. Given the presumption that the meaning of the words “left” and “right” is already fixed, we can say that it is a fact of human anatomy that the heart is on the left side.

#2. We can actually say that the meaning of the word “left” is the side of one’s heart, and that the meaning of the word “right” is the other side.

Regarding #2, consider that if we are not dealing with idiomatic words, then the assignment of meaning to the individual words in a sentence determines the meaning of the sentence. Thus, given choice #2, it is not a fact of human anatomy that the heart is on the left side. Given choice #2, it is a fact about the meaning of the concept “left” that the heart is on the left side. In that case, “the heart is on the left side” is true for the same reason that “If I cannot hear you then I cannot listen to you” is true.

It emerged in the following thread:
A parable: how the magnetic compass solved a linguistic, semantic, and semiotic crisis
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=934814

Link to the post where it arose:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12701180&postcount=15

 

[Elizium23]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)