'you' say here "peteolcott", 'you' too', so WHO is this OTHER one who, supposedly, BELIEVES that it is POSSIBLE that 'cats are animals' is false and that we have been fooled and that the actual truth is that 'cats have always been ten story office buildings'?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 3:45 pmSo then maybe you too believe that it is possible that {cats are animals} is false and that we have been fooledIwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 3:06 pmThat's just a model of language, not a model of the world. To know that it is a model of the world would mean we would have to use empirical knowledge. Cats is a meaningless term with empirical knowledge and so is animals.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 2:50 pm
We can build a 100% reliable model of the world by stating all of the things that are
necessarily true as axioms. {cats are animals} and thus not {ten story office buildings}
are certainly true statements. The first one becomes an axiom. The second one is
deduced on the basis of the set of properties assigned to cats and office buildings.
When we say such things as {Pluto is a planet} we must say them in a way that allows
for future revision. When we says that {cats are animals} we need not be concerned
that someone will later on point out that {cats were always ten story office buildings}.
Long story short a correct model of the world is the axiomatic basis of knowledge that
defines the meaning of terms.
So, yes, we could go around saying correct sentences, but we would have no way of knowing if they apply to the world. Not just is small ways: like we find out that one of the animals we have been including in the category 'cats' is actually a different kind of animal. But in all ways.
It's also a denial that our words came out of empirical processes. So we have taken empirical processes, come up with words, like cats - then we list attributes of cats we have found, empirically, and use these to determine if something is a cat. Fruit of the poison tree.
Sure we can have a dictionary, but without empirical knowledge it would be filled with made up words and definitions and categories.
Gnupt is a type of girdle frak, distinguished from others by being able to do math and has wings.
Or
Kleeb are animals.
But then we find out that Kleep are actually alien toy holograms.
Whatever we call knowledge unless it is something like math with no referents, just rules and symbols, if fallible.
And analytic truths don't make it to a model unless we just consider it a random model. Because the moment we say model A is more correct than model b
we
had
to
check
empirically
and then
we
made
the
model
building
from
empirical experience (pardon the redundancy)
I have a model dogs are a type of stone.
and that the actual truth is that {cats have always been ten story office buildings}
AND 'the sun revolves around the earth' was just ANOTHER 'axiom', of 'the model of the world', to 'those' WHO BELIEVE/D 'that axiom'.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 3:45 pm A model of the world is an abstract representation of things in the world using language.
{cats are animals} is one axiom of the model of the world.
Just like, in the days when this is being written, some BELIEVE that 'the earth is flat', is an 'axiom', and a 'true', or 'truer', 'model of the world'.
Some, also, BELIEVE that 'earth is a planet', is an 'axiom', and 'a model of the world', just like some BELIEVE that 'pluto is a planet', is an 'axiom', and 'model of the world'. Just like some BELIEVE that 'pluto' AND 'earth' may or may NOT be 'a planet' AT ALL.
SOME are JUST MORE OPEN than "others", while SOME are JUST MORE CLOSED than "others".