A Simple Math Question

[kaylasdad99]

@Chronos

@kaylasdad99

It doesn’t actually mean a goddamn thing, in the circumstances. For it to be a meaningful phrase, there would have to be a third referent (e.g. B is half as effective as A. C is one fiftieth as effective as A. Therefore C is 25 times less effective than B. )

Now, there are some smarty-pants who will insist that 25 times less effective means one twenty-fifth as effective, and that language doesn’t work like arithmetic. This signifies one thing: that I’m sharing the planet with people who are wrong about things. I don’t have to like this fact, but I have to accept that it is a fact.

Your first paragraph is arguing against your second. If there exists any other referent at all, then the interpretation that you say would be meaningful would be exactly the same as the interpretation that you say is meaningless. It doesn’t matter what that other referent even is. And there’s always some other possible referent.

If you will re-read the sentence that I wrote, you will notice that I was careful to say “in the circumstances.”

Those circumstances included the condition that no third referent was given.

I will not argue with your assertion that there is always some possible referent, but until it is referred to, it is not a referent.

So the putative meaningfulness of the phrase takes on a Schroedingerian quality, in which the phrase is in a simultaneously meaningful and meaningless Eigenstaat which collapses only when the third referent is introduced and specified.

Alternatively, it can be argued that the meaning is Heisenbergian, if you will; that is, the term is always meaningful, but without the third referent being specified, its actual meaning is unknowable.

ETA: Mr. Riemann, you were saying something about bluster? I’ll SHOW you some bluster!

[Chronos]

@kaylasdad99

Alternatively, it can be argued that the meaning is Heisenbergian, if you will; that is, the term is always meaningful, but without the third referent being specified, its actual meaning is unknowable.

No, you don’t need the third referent to be specified, because every conceivable referent will result in the exact same interpretation.

[Senegoid]

@Chronos

No, you don’t need the third referent to be specified, because every conceivable referent will result in the exact same interpretation.

But you need to assert, or at least posit, that a conceivable referent exists, or can exist.