Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!ctvax!uokvax!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Truth in Philosophy of Science - (nf)
Message-ID: <5029@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jan-84 23:12:38 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5029
Posted: Fri Jan 20 23:12:38 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jan-84 23:28:24 EST
Lines: 18

#R:wxlvax:-21400:uokvax:8300027:000:801
uokvax!emjej    Jan 18 00:44:00 1984

Sorry, but the claim that 2 + 2 = 4 is true "by virtue of the physical
equivalents of the symbols" is at best ambiguous.

2 + 2 = 4 is a derivable string given the meanings one usually assigns
to those symbols in such systems as Russell and Whitehead, Hofstadter's
TNT, etc. In that sense, it is "true." It has proven applicable to
physical situations involving discrete objects whose interactions are
ignorable (two marbles plus two marbles works reasonably well, but
two suns plus two planets may give you two suns and a large cloud of
gas), and in that sense one might call 2 + 2 = 4 "true" also. It's
entirely possible that one might construct a system in which 1 + 1 = 3
is a derivable string, but I do hope that whoever does it uses some
different symbols, to avoid confusion.

					James Jones