Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Fine's work on arbitrary objects shows that semantic valu... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The possibilist commitments of an intended KQML interpretation cannot be eliminated by the fact that the sentence 'there exist things that are not actual' is false at every world in KQML

    Fine's work on arbitrary objects shows that semantic values assigned in a model can outrun what the object language can express, creating irreducible metatheoretic commitments.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Model theory requires quantification over objects (arbitrary or otherwise) that lack counterparts in object-language syntax.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fine's arbitrary objects solve the problem of reference without commitment to infinite regress or conceptual circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Metatheoretic apparatus inevitably introduces ontological commitments absent from first-order formalism itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Semantic values need not denote mind-independent entities; they can be formal constructs definable purely recursively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The expressibility gap Fine identifies may reflect pragmatic limitations rather than genuine metaphysical gaps requiring new objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Arbitrary objects multiply ontology unnecessarily when fictionalist or deflationist approaches to model theory avoid such commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Arbitrary objects multiply ontology unnecessarily when fictionalist or deflation...Fine's arbitrary objects solve the problem of reference without commitment to in...Metatheoretic apparatus inevitably introduces ontological commitments absent fro...Model theory requires quantification over objects (arbitrary or otherwise) that ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Semantic values need not denote mind-independent entities; they can be formal co...The expressibility gap Fine identifies may reflect pragmatic limitations rather ...The possibilist commitments of an intended KQML interpretation cannot be elimina...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit