Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>What the true-x2 definition does not allow you to say is: "I know that
>Sherlock Holmes lives on Wall Street using the epistemology of A.C."
>(Well, you're allowed to say it, but it would be false. Under your
>definition it could be true.)

But it's NOT true that Sherlock Holmes lives on Baker Street, because
Sherlock Holmes is not and never was alive.  I know that he lives ONLY
by contemplating a known-false (i.e. fictional) epistemology.  And I know he
"lives" only by presuming the timelessness of literature, since the
Victorian era ended almost a hundred years ago.  I don't even know if there
 still IS a Baker Street in London.

The only way I can make x2 true in a statement about Sherlock Holmes as-real
is if I limit the universe of discourse to AC Doyle's works (which I
did not explicitly, nor to my knowledge implicitly do).  Now someone can
say that invoking an author of fiction as an epistemology implicitly
invokes his fictional world as the metaphysical universe.  But I nefver gave
any indication that my epistemology was invoking a fictional world.  Thus
you have no basis FROM MY STATEMENT to treat an invocation of AC Doyle as
an epistemology any differently from an invocation of Albert Einstein (who
do far as I know never published any fiction).

If you want to call a statement TRUE you MUST qualify it by the metaphysics
or I have no idea what you mean.

lojbab