On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Nicholas Thompson < nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <snip> > > > Translatability has been a crucial issue in modern analytical philosophy. > Translation implies that you and I have the same piano and that, while we > may call the keys by different names, there is a key on your piano that > corresponds to every key on mine. But philosophers have more or less given > up on translateablity, I think. > That seems like a useful concept. Why did they give up on it? > Still, I am tempted to start with the assumption that there is a word, or > small group of words, in my vocabulary that corresponds to your word, > undecideable. Can you guess at what those words might be? > Interestingly enough, the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy has decidability all over the place, so maybe (un)decidable is a reasonably good philosophical concept already. They use it in basically the same way computing folk do. But then Frank tells me that the philosophy departments are using highly specialized mathematics. Unfortunately, if an area of philosophy is undecidable, it has a "halting problem" .. i.e. no sense discussing it any further! :) > Nick >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
