I have refuted the Münchhausen trilemma: The dogmatic argument, which
rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than
defended. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

Stipulating relations between finite strings is the only way that
arbitrary finite strings acquire any semantic meaning thus is not merely
dogmatic. Language only acquires meaning on the basis of stipulating
relations between otherwise arbitrary finite strings.

Although "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" if we fail to
assign any name to {a rose} then we cannot even refer to it.

The relationship between "dog" and "animal" is stipulated to be [is a
type of]. The only way to prove that a dog is an animal is through other
stipulated relationships.

The foundation of analytical knowledge is based on stipulated relations
between otherwise arbitrary finite strings.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323866366_The_Notion_of_Truth_in_Natural_and_Formal_Languages

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 10/26/2021 11:07 AM, Peter wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> On 10/26/2021 10:18 AM, Peter wrote:
>>> olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/25/2021 10:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-10-25 08:12, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> I have refuted the Münchhausen trilemma: The dogmatic argument,
>>>>>> which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather
>>>>>> than defended.
>>>>>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stipulating relations between finite strings is the only way that
>>>>>> arbitrary finite strings acquire any semantic meaning thus is not
>>>>>> merely dogmatic. Language only acquires meaning on the basis of
>>>>>> stipulating relations between otherwise arbitrary finite strings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" if we
>>>>>> fail to assign any name to {a rose} then we cannot even refer to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The relationship between "dog" and "animal" is stipulated to be
>>>>>> [is a type of]. The only way to prove that a dog is an animal is
>>>>>> through other stipulated relationships.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is utter nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are three pictures which may or may not be critters of one
>>>>> sort or another:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pictures have nothing to do with it.
>>>>
>>>> The otherwise totally meaningless finite strings "dog" is stipulated to
>>>
>>> Stipulated, so far as I can tell, by you.  What obliges others to
>>> agree?   Are you pressing for a UN resolution perhaps?
>>>
>>
>> You will either be able to understand it on the basis of this seminal
>> paper or it is simply over your head:
>>
>> https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf
>
> I am familiar with the paper.
>
> Are you familiar with C's principle of tolerance?
>

Logical pluralism is the claim that there is more than one adequate
logic. Many authors consider Carnap as one of the forerunners of logical
pluralism. More than that, they claim that Carnap’s Principle of
Tolerance consists in one of the first explicit formulations a logical
pluralism. https://philarchive.org/archive/DIACPO-3

It seems irrelevant.
I am saying that the foundation of the body of knowledge that can be
fully expressed using language is ultimately anchored in stipulated
relations between finite strings.

To convert this to simpler terminology the foundation of the body of
knowledge that can be fully expressed using language is ultimately
anchored in the assignment of definitions to words.

Foundationalism has been very convincingly (yet incorrectly ) rebutted
on the basis that Quine was unable to comprehend that bachelors are
unmarried.

https://www.theologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fbd6-1538-0000-000070cf64bc/Quine51.pdf

>>
>>>> have the otherwise totally meaningless relation of "is a type of" to
>>>> the otherwise totally meaningless finite string "animal".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein