That isn’t what you need to show. You need to show that the semantics have no ontological implications, that they say nothing about the territory .
Actually, what I need to show is that the semantics say nothing extra about the territory that is meaningful. My argument is that the predictions are canonical representation of the belief, so it’s fine if the semantics say things about the territory that the predictions can’t say, as long as everything it says that does not affect the predictions is meaningless. At least, meaningless in the territory.
The semantics of gravity theory says that the force that pulls objects together over long range based on their mass is called “gravity”. If you call that force “travigy” instead, it will cause no difference in the predictions. This is because the name of the force if a property of the map, not the territory—if it was meaningful in the territory it should have had impact on the predictions.
And I claim that the “center of the universe” is similar—it has no meaning in the territory. The universe has no “center”—you can think of “center of mass” or “center of bounding volume” of a group of objects, but there is no single point you can naturally call “the center”. There can be good or bad choices for the center, but not right or wrong choices—the center is a property of the map, not the territory.
If it had any effect at all on the territory, it should have somehow affected the predictions.
My argument is that the predictions are canonical representation of the belief, so it’s fine if the semantics say things about the territory that the predictions can’t say, as long as everything it says that does not affect the predictions is meaningless.
How can you say something, but say something meaningless?
Why does not saying anything (meaningful) about the territory buy you? What’s the advantage?
Realists are realists because they place a terminal value in knowing what the territory is above and beyond making predictions. They can say what the advantage is … to them. If you don’t personally value knowing what the territory is, that need not apply to others.
The semantics of gravity theory says that the force that pulls objects together over long range based on their mass is called “gravity”. If you call that force “travigy” instead, it will cause no difference in the predictions
Travigy means nothing, or it means gravity. Either way , it doesnt affect my argument.
You don’t seem to understand what semantics is. It’s not just a matter of spelling changes or textual changes. A semantic change doesn’t mean that two strings fail strcmp() , it means that terms have been substituted with meaningful terms that mean something different.
And I claim that the “center of the universe” is similar—it has no meaning in the territory
“There is a centre of the universe” is considered false in modern cosmology.
So there is no real thing corresponding to the meaning of string “centre of the universe”. Which is to say that the string “centre of the universe” has a meaning , unlike the string “flibble na dar wobble”.
If it had any effect at all on the territory, it should have somehow affected the predictions.
The territory can be different ways that produce the same predictions.
Actually, what I need to show is that the semantics say nothing extra about the territory that is meaningful. My argument is that the predictions are canonical representation of the belief, so it’s fine if the semantics say things about the territory that the predictions can’t say, as long as everything it says that does not affect the predictions is meaningless. At least, meaningless in the territory.
The semantics of gravity theory says that the force that pulls objects together over long range based on their mass is called “gravity”. If you call that force “travigy” instead, it will cause no difference in the predictions. This is because the name of the force if a property of the map, not the territory—if it was meaningful in the territory it should have had impact on the predictions.
And I claim that the “center of the universe” is similar—it has no meaning in the territory. The universe has no “center”—you can think of “center of mass” or “center of bounding volume” of a group of objects, but there is no single point you can naturally call “the center”. There can be good or bad choices for the center, but not right or wrong choices—the center is a property of the map, not the territory.
If it had any effect at all on the territory, it should have somehow affected the predictions.
How can you say something, but say something meaningless?
Why does not saying anything (meaningful) about the territory buy you? What’s the advantage?
Realists are realists because they place a terminal value in knowing what the territory is above and beyond making predictions. They can say what the advantage is … to them. If you don’t personally value knowing what the territory is, that need not apply to others.
Travigy means nothing, or it means gravity. Either way , it doesnt affect my argument.
You don’t seem to understand what semantics is. It’s not just a matter of spelling changes or textual changes. A semantic change doesn’t mean that two strings fail strcmp() , it means that terms have been substituted with meaningful terms that mean something different.
“There is a centre of the universe” is considered false in modern cosmology. So there is no real thing corresponding to the meaning of string “centre of the universe”. Which is to say that the string “centre of the universe” has a meaning , unlike the string “flibble na dar wobble”.
The territory can be different ways that produce the same predictions.