[FOM] CH and mathematics
blumal at mail.biu.ac.il
Mon Jan 21 05:16:18 EST 2008
Neil Tennant wrote:
>Joe Shipman wrote (Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:37:07 -0500):
>>I don't see why our inability to know something should cast any doubt
>>on its definiteness. That's epistemological arrogance.
>The anti-realist position that all truths are in principle knowable often
>attracts this kind of criticism.
>But the anti-realist would say that there's another kind of arrogance at
>work behind the realist position (which is Shipman's position here).
>It is the *semantic* arrogance of thinking that one has a grasp of such
>truth-conditions (or meaning) as make it possible for the
>(allegedly determinate) truth-value of a sentence forever to elude
Why is the duration of time of determination relevant to grasping the
truth conditions of a sentence?
And are the truth conditions of CH any less clear than that of 2+1=3?
More information about the FOM