Re: detabbing again

Flash Gordon <smap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Tim Rentsch wrote:
Seebs <usenet-nospam@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

On 2009-10-05, Tim Rentsch <txr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Looking up "objective" in various online dictionaries, all the
ones I looked at give some variation on the following
alternatives (the ones here are from Merriam-Webster's):
a. of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition
in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual
thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality
independent of the mind
b. expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived
without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or
interpretations
Okay.

I believe there are statements about what the Standard means that
satisfy (b), but not any that satisfy (a).
I disagree. Consider the claim:

Section 5.2.4.2.1 of the TC3 version of the C99 standard specifies
that the implementation-defined value of INT_MAX must be no less
than 32,767.

The standard exists independent of any observer, and has existence independent
of individual thought. While it's true that we can't observe it without some
kind of observer or thought, so what? Compare it with the claim:

The gravitational effects of an object massing 20 kilograms are
twice the gravitational effects of an object massing 10 kilograms.

This is subject to the same problem -- you can't make sense of this claim
without knowing the words. But it's *true* even if you don't know the
words.

The question isn't whether or not the claims are true, the question
is whether or not they can be verified without reference to any
observer's interpretation.

There are now algorithmic ways of doing certain forms of analysis on
text. There are definitely ways of analysing and proving things about
code. Put these two fields of science together and you can get a
computer (not a person) to analyse the C standard for unambiguous
statements, such as the minimum value of INT_MAX, and then have the
program analyse a C implementation to see if it meets those
requirements. Obviously with current technology it cannot test all
aspects, but it is certainly possible to test some. Therefor it IS
possible to use an instrument (specifically a computer) to test for
some of these things.

Certainly it's possible to analyze text algorithmically and
process it in possibly useful ways. But that isn't the same as
what the text "means", unless you're using a very different
notion of meaning than most people. Also, note that just because
there is an algorithm that processes linguistic text doesn't mean
there is anything absolute about its results or conclusions.
It's perfectly possible to write an algorithm that would
transform the ISO C standard into "Romeo and Juliet", but that
doesn't mean the C standard was written by Shakespeare (or
that "Romeo and Juliet" was written by the ISO committee).


I can make sense of both claims. In
the second case the claim can be verified objectively because
(in my opinion) its truth value can be measured by an instrument.
In the first case the claim cannot be verified objectively because
(again in my opinion) its truth value rests on whether certain text
"specifies" something else, and this condition depends on
who is interpreting that text.

You need to study physics more, there is a lot of stuff which is
dependent on the observer but can still be measured.

I can pretty much hold my own in physics with anyone
who doesn't have a degree in the subject. But if you
have some insights that you think I would benefit from,
please feel free to send them to me in email.


Also, I have yet to come across any instrument which provided readins
which did not need interpreting.

It's easy to devise an instrument, for example for the
ball-dropping experiment, that turns a light ON if they
hit within one millisecond of each other, and stays off
otherwise.


For another example, consider the claim:

The word "Septermber" appears at the top of most pages of
the n1256 C Standard draft.

and the claim:

Because the word "Septermber" appears at the top of most
pages of the n1256 C Standard draft, all even-numbered
paragraphs should be ignored in determining what it specifies.

The first claim can be verified by direct observation. The
second claim can be verified (or refuted) only by asking
someone whether they think it's right -- its truth value
depends on who you ask.

Some things not being objectively verifiable does not mean that nothing is.

Okay, but that's nothing like anything I've said.


Repeating myself from an earlier message -- the question of
whether or not a statement is objectively verifiable is not
itself verifiable objectively. So other people may disagree with
my assessment of what statements are objectively verifiable, and
if they do there really isn't anything I can say about that,
except perhaps something like, "well, if that's what you want to
think, I can't offer any objective proof you shouldn't."

Yet you *are* arguing about what what is or is not objective.

I'm not. I'm only stating my opinion and trying to explain the
meaning of some previous statements. If after understanding my
statements someone still wants to hold a different opinion,
that's up to them, but there isn't any point in saying "I
disagree" without first understanding what the other person is
saying.


What the Standard
"means" does not have a reality independent of the mind. What
the Standards /says/ (ie, what its text is) has a reality
independent of the mind, but what it /means/ does not. Meaning
does not have independent physical existence -- it exists only
in the mind.
The same could be said of the *meaning* of your example with the two
iron balls, and I think it would be wrong in both cases; while it's true
that a mind probably has to exist to apprehend meaning, it doesn't
necessarily follow that the thing meant can't have independent and objective
truth.

Right, but I wasn't making any claim about what the statement
about two iron balls "means". My claim was about how the
the physical objects will behave in the actual world, not
about the meaning of some sentence with those words in it.

Now perform the experiment and measure the results *without* affecting
the behaviour. Current theory states this is impossible. Therefor it
is not possible to verify your claim. Therefor, as it cannot be
verified, your claim as to the behaviour of those balls is not
objective.

Depends on what measurement it is you're trying to do. For some
experiments, the error bars of the approximation being tested are
much larger than the fluctuations due to quantum mechanical
effects; measurements in such cases can be made quite reliably.
The ball-dropping experiment is one of these.


Since the text of the standard really does exist, and the terminology is
defined, I don't think it's really outside the realm of objective reality,
even though all the claims you can make about it are going to be necessarily
fairly elaborately constructed if you want to make sure they're true. :)

Let me try phrasing it this way: What questions about the
Standard can be answered without asking any person what the
answer is? To be objective, a question must be answerable
without consulting the opinion of any person.

Easy. What is the minimum allowable value of INT_MAX. I'm pretty sure
that with current methods it would be possible to write a program to
analyse the text and determine the answer to this question. It would
not be easy, but it would be possible.

It would be possible to write a program to analyze the text and
determine /an/ answer to this question. It also would be possible
to write a different program to analyze the text and determine
a different answer. Neither program has any inherent claim
to producing /the/ answer.


In theory it would actually be possible to develop a system which had
every meaning of every word in the standard (and all referenced
standards) and prove a lot more than this.

Only if you take "meaning" to mean what the system says it means,
rather than what people who read the standard think it means. I'm
not interested in what the program says, because it could say
whatever the person who wrote the program wanted it to say. I'm
interested in what meaning is understood by the people who read
the standard.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: detabbing again
    ... The standard exists independent of any observer, ... "means" does not have a reality independent of the mind. ... The same could be said of the *meaning* of your example with the two ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: The annotated annotated annotated C standard part 2
    ... A nice sounding statement, but totally meaningless. ... the body of a function is a compound ... Of course, the C Standard uses "block" to mean exactly the same thing as "compound statement", so Schildt's statement makes even less sense if I take your interpretation. ... Algol meaning, a profoundly important meaning which acknowledges the ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: function return pointer of int?
    ... The standard uses "value" to mean different things in ... the meaning is always as defined. ... It produces a value of pointer type. ... then it may be a trap representation, which is not a value of pointer ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: C objects
    ... object-oriented programming is different from the definition in the C ... (That may not be an exact quote; my copy of the C90 standard makes ... > These redefinitions narrow the meaning of these words ... > and require the redefinition of other common terms. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Malcolms new book
    ... Note that strlenis a "pure function". ... Different programming languages use different terms ... line may use the same word but with a different meaning. ... The Standard does not define it; ...
    (comp.lang.c)
Loading