Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Bob:
>  Examine the following utterances.

       0. The claim: X.

>    1. The claim: "that X" is true by metaphysics A.
>
>    2. The claim:  {The claim: "that X" is true by metaphysics A.}
>           is true by metaphysics B.
>
>    3. The claim:  [The claim:  {The claim: "that X" is true by metaphysics
A.}
>           is true by metaphysics B.] is true by metaphysics C.
>

(I added the 0th claim for completeness.)

>  Is the truth value of 3 different from the truth value of 2 when
>  metaphysics C is the same as nmetaphysics B?
>
>  The answer is no, if you select the right metaphysics.
>
>  You may now create and examine new utterances 4, 5, 6, etc, as many
>  as you like, and determine to your satisfaction that adding a new
>  claim does not change the truth value; and this applies no matter
>  how many you add.

Right, but why did you start comparing 3 and 2. What you did still
holds if you start with 0 and 1. The "right" metaphysics is,
of course, the one you mentioned in another post, i.e. the
common experience of the speakers. When you make the bare
claim X, that's the implicit metaphysics.

>  Adding a new claim does not change the truth value.  Hence,
>  adding any number of new claims does not change the truth value.
>
>  Hence, you do not need a new metaphysics.
>
>  Hence, you are saved from the fate of falling into an infinite
>  regress.  Xeno manages to walk across the room.  In their race,
>  Achilles runs past the tortoise.  The arrow reaches its target.

Right. I think we're reaching agreement.

co'o mi'e xorxes