>Yes it does, using the ordinary linguistic definition of meaning. There’s no way of making the point without begging the question.
Well, if you explained to them what they were using language for, they would presumably disagree. Ask your friends whether, by talking about reality, they simply mean “an assumption that makes science simpler”, or any other of the accounts you and others have offered in the comments, and I suspect most will say no. There’s two possibilities: either their usage of reality/exist is meaningless, or they’re mistaken about what it means. For my purposes, accepting either of these is a significant step towards my view.
>You present an example , causally non-interacting worlds
Remember, I think realism as applied to the world that does causally interact with us is also incoherent. My first example was just to warm things up.
I don’t think people would agree with this as an account of what they mean by reality. Calling it an assumption already conflicts with what most people intuitively “believe”.
It’s not novel, the core idea is at least a century old.
You’re right, I haven’t proven it. I’ve challenged everyone to provide an alternative account of definition that makes it meaningful, and over a hundred comments later nobody has done so.
You’re right, I haven’t proven it. I’ve challenged everyone to provide an alternative account of definition that makes it meaningful, and over a hundred comments later nobody has done so.
The objections you keep making are that alternative suggestions are meaningless given your definition of meaningful. In other words, that they are wrong because you are right. That alternative accounts are wrong because they are different to the one true account.
To make progress you need a way of engaging that isn’t question-begging.
No, I’ve objected that the alternative definitions are circular, and assume the coherency as part of the definition. That is a valid critique even without assuming that it’s incoherent from the outset.
>Yes it does, using the ordinary linguistic definition of meaning. There’s no way of making the point without begging the question.
Well, if you explained to them what they were using language for, they would presumably disagree. Ask your friends whether, by talking about reality, they simply mean “an assumption that makes science simpler”, or any other of the accounts you and others have offered in the comments, and I suspect most will say no. There’s two possibilities: either their usage of reality/exist is meaningless, or they’re mistaken about what it means. For my purposes, accepting either of these is a significant step towards my view.
>You present an example , causally non-interacting worlds
Remember, I think realism as applied to the world that does causally interact with us is also incoherent. My first example was just to warm things up.
Reality is an assumption that makes science comprehensible.
I don’t think people would agree with this as an account of what they mean by reality. Calling it an assumption already conflicts with what most people intuitively “believe”.
I thought your claim was that “reality” has no meaning.
It is. That doesn’t conflict with what I said?
How can people have beliefs about reality if it has no meaning ?
Their beliefs are meaningless. The fact that they think their beliefs are meaningful doesn’t change that. People can be wrong.
You haven’t proven that , because you haven’t proven that your novel theory of meaning is the only correct one.
It’s not novel, the core idea is at least a century old.
You’re right, I haven’t proven it. I’ve challenged everyone to provide an alternative account of definition that makes it meaningful, and over a hundred comments later nobody has done so.
Which is very young compared to the total history of philosophy and fairly young compared to modern linguistics.
The objections you keep making are that alternative suggestions are meaningless given your definition of meaningful. In other words, that they are wrong because you are right. That alternative accounts are wrong because they are different to the one true account.
To make progress you need a way of engaging that isn’t question-begging.
No, I’ve objected that the alternative definitions are circular, and assume the coherency as part of the definition. That is a valid critique even without assuming that it’s incoherent from the outset.