[MD] Tuukka's letter to Robert Pirsig

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Tuukka]
> Nonrelativizably used predicates cannot be proven to have, or to not have, any properties.

[Tuukka]
> I gave an example of a nonrelativizably used 
> predicate earlier, in the context of the problem of induction.
> Another predicate amateurs commonly use nonrelativizably is "everything 
> that exists". If we have defined a system, in which there are certain 
> forms of existence, and then we realize we want to add another form of 
> existence to our definition, our predicate "everything that exists" 
> would not be the same after the addition as it was before it. But if we 
> speak of it as if it would remain the same, we'd be using it 
> nonrelativizably.

EXAMPLE I: The predicate 'problem of induction':
1) Hume investigated the problem of induction.
2) Goodman investigated the problem of induction.

We cannot determine if either 1) or 2) is true because the predicate 'the problem of induction'
is being used nonrelativizably & is not the same predicate in 1) & 2).

EXAMPLE II: The predicate 'everything that exists':
The young prince is told that after the king dies, he will own everything that exists.
He will own the land, the peasants, and because God has chosen him to be the next king,
he will own the sun, the moon & the stars above.
Later, he is schooled & learns that numbers exist.  But numbers cannot be owned.
So if the prince now says "I will own everything that exists" he is using the predicate
'everything that exists' nonrelativizably & it cannot be determined whether he is saying
something true or something false.

Is this how you want your examples to be understood?
Craig