[MD] Nonrelativizably Used Predicates

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Ron,
>
>> Ron:
>> Any useful predicate is simple, and economical in explanation.
> Tuukka:
> Not true. The properties of the predicate "the truth value of the Goldbach conjecture" are extremely complicated, yet resolving it would be of some importance. Basically, if what you said here were true, any mathematics above high school level would be "not useful".
>
> Perhaps you are suggesting, that philosophy should be simple. If this is too complicated for you, it's not for you.
>
> Ron:
> Well, one has to ask how useful is the truth value of  unresolved conjecture. It's meaning is all in the explanation
> of its function.
>   
> Philosophy should be intelligible as should predication.

Tuukka:
If the Poincare conjecture's truth value had been deemed completely 
uninteresting before it had already been solved, it would have never 
been solved.

What is intelligible varies from person to person. This is intelligible 
to me. That should not be a problem for you, since you have the option 
to ignore this.

>> Ron adds:
>> If a "nonrelativizably used predicate" is essentially the same as what is known grammatically as an "abstract noun"
>> then you are simply trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist with a kind of overcomplicated term
>> that does not offer a better, more simplified, easily understandable explanation.
> Tuukka:
> A predicate is not the same thing as an abstract noun. They are not required to be abstract. "Concept" would be a more correct intuitively appealing designation.
>   
> Ron:
> No but a "nonrelativizably used" predicate is. A relativizably used predicate is a concrete noun.
> I'm just not sure how the term relativizably lends greater explanitory power.

Tuukka:
Incorrect. Nonrelativizably used predicates cannot be proven to have, or 
to not have, any properties. Hence, they may neither (provably) have nor 
not have the property of being an abstract noun. Nonrelativizability 
itself is not a property of a predicate, but a property of the way in 
which a predicate is used.

>   
> Tukka:
> I don't insist on using unappealing language. My work may be regarded as a work in progress, and as such, names of things can be changed. But I am currently using the name "nonrelativizably used predicate", because it is the technically correct name for that thing, from a mathematical point of view. Feel free to suggest a better name for more casual use! Not everyone is an analytic philosopher.
>
> Ron:
> Well its an "abstract noun" from a Grammatical point of view and from a historical philosophic perspective
> and as just a basic simple understanding. No not everyone is an analytic philosopher.nor should they have
> to be to understand what you are saying.

Tuukka:
Yes, they have to be, if they want to understand what I'm saying. Don't 
you tell me to dumb myself down. If everyone did that, it wouldn't be a 
pretty sight.

-Tuukka