There are symbol-juxtapositions which are syntactically or semantically disconnected from any model set in ZFC. There are no sets in ZFC which are similarly separated from statements in a suitable language.
You can write nonsense formulas on paper which don’t correspond to theorems about anything. You can’t construct nonsense universes which aren’t described by theorems anywhere.
Words only mean anything because we interpret them to correspond to the real world. In the absence of words, the real world continues existing.
This is beautiful: I can’t turn it into equations. Does that refute it or support it?
Did you try? Each sentence in the quote could easily be expressed in some formal system like predicate calculus or something.
There are symbol-juxtapositions which are syntactically or semantically disconnected from any model set in ZFC. There are no sets in ZFC which are similarly separated from statements in a suitable language.
This looks like the sort of thing that I usually find enlightening, but I don’t understand it. Could you repeat it in baby-speak?
You can write nonsense formulas on paper which don’t correspond to theorems about anything. You can’t construct nonsense universes which aren’t described by theorems anywhere.
Words only mean anything because we interpret them to correspond to the real world. In the absence of words, the real world continues existing.