It, Self and Context

 SO the statement:

"it is large"

is no use by itself ordinarily.

∃x | x is large

What language normally does is establish a context, like a context in software e.g. graphics context, that hold the state of the "conversation."

Conversations occur in separate statements and these are "held together" by a context.

So in normal language we would never say "it is large" by itself. The "it" refers to something that is held in context. If we had dipped into a book we would look back in the text to find the reference to "it" to find out its name. 

So "∃x | x is large" is not a natural representation of "it is large" it is not sufficient to note that "something is large" in natural language we seek a name for x. Just checking for "horned rabbits. "it is large" is problematic is we assume it always refers to something. Perhaps the context was not filled in correctly. We look back and see that "it" is a "horned rabbit" and we realise that "it" does not really refer to anything. But the mechanism of it is still to consult the context, or the passed history of the statement stream.

Now let me borrow from Plato and write thinks in Context with a capitalism like forms. So I might say lets eat pizza tonight. And then conversation occurs about Pizza (in capitals) so that "it is very good from a certain restaurant."

Now with Context in mind (ironic as we just put context into the context of this blog, and irony is only possible through context - you say one thing but the context says the opposite and we all know it was intended that way -- as a greater context?) what about "this is false."

"Jane said 'this is very expensive'" ("Jane said '∃x | x is expensive'") is not very useful by itself. If we had opened a book we might turn back a page to find out what Jane was talking about. So "this" is in the context.

So "Jane said 'this is false'" refers to something which is known to those in context but not know to those outside the context. Perhaps Jane is referring to a piece of paper she has just read, or something someone has just said to her.

Now "This sentence is false". It looks like we don't need to turn back the page to find out the context because "this" must be the sentence itself. But this is ambiguous. It may be the same situation as above. We turn back a page and see that Jane has been handed a piece of paper with a false statement on it.

So "this" actually depends upon context!

So you can create a direct self-reference without ambiguity. You need a context to complete the reference.

Take Godel: something like (this is not formal nor correct) "x is not provable && x = Godel#(x)" so with the fixed point of x we have a sentence being given its own Godel number. If it has a Godel number then it is a valid statement, but the sentence says it is not provable or derivable within the rules.

Now I need to reread the paper again (#TODO), but I don't think its obvious what Beq says without context. You need a logician reading the proof for the problem to occur. There is no sentence by itself, that refers to itself unambiguously Now that is OSRH extraordinaire. The idea that a sentence cannot be its own meaning. It occurs within the context of a language community and a culture, and a la Wittgenstein language MUST BE used. The usage of a language MUST be outside the meaning. Don't we get Tarski like contradictions if we allow statements to be constructed by themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem#:~:text=Tarski's%20undefinability%20theorem%2C%20stated%20and,cannot%20be%20defined%20in%20arithmetic.

Anyway out of time.

Context is a necessary shadow of statements. And OSRH was looking for a proof that the Context could not be expressed within a system, or similarly no statement could exist without context.

Bit more:

A statement like "Jane has blond hair" is absolutely fine. We know how to speak the language and it draws us into a world where we know the kind of situations where this is true." we can now paint a picture of Jane and obey this description with no problem. The problems for SRH  occur when we say "this has blond hair" and this could be covered by the domain. So its absurd no sentence even has hair, but the door is open to bigger problems. A la Magritte "This is not a sentence". "this" now falls within the domain and could be the sentence itself. But without context we don't know and that is important.

OK missed one example. "I am false" in English "I" is not ambiguous. It means specifically the case where "this" is pointing at itself. You can imagine a quaint Gollum like language where people refer to themselves as "this" so it does work. This the problem of Anatta in Buddhism. Buddha says there is no "I" that exists without context. You can't have a self supporting solipsistic narcissist. Their conversation with themselves might go:

I exist!

Well who says so?

Well me obviously

And by what authority do you to say this?
Well am I not saying it, doesn't that prove I exist

Buddha says no. It is true that you are saying it, in that it is being said. But you can't deduce from that it is said by "you"**. Heraclitus would say here that by the time you try and point the toe at the "river" who said it, the river has changed (You can't stick your toe in the same river twice cos the second time you stick your toe in the river has flowed and so has changed, and actually so has your toe, and so have you!). 

** I notice a subtle ambiguity in language here. The school teacher says "right silence in class" and you shout out "loser." And the teacher says "ok who said that." Now it is quite right that you said it and the teacher is after you now. Perhaps teachers says "ok no one is going home until the person who called me a loser owns up". So class sits there (how often has this happened). Eventually teacher wants to go home so class dismissed. But perhaps teachers puts everyone in detention. Now you are unpopular and there is no doubt there is a "you" here and you get blamed for everyone in after school. But this is a social "you" teacher wants to know who, and your class mates know who. Everyone is playing this game.

This is very different from the self that Buddha is talking about. You are cast onto a desert island alone and you sit on the sand and think "oh no I am in trouble now." After a year of being alone what is the use of this "me"... there is no one else. What would you need a self? "I'm going off to bathe in the sea" seriously what is the point of this there is just you so no need for the "I". We would just think "time to bathe in sea." And we would bathe end of. Perhaps we would think "oops forgot to get fire wood to cook tonight" and we would "go get firewood." But would we think "you loser you are always forgetting stuff." Well perhaps we might be annoyed or scared if its getting dark and we must go the night without a fire. True we could end up hating our self for being an idiot. But it is different from the class room cos this is just us. We might make a resolution to not forget again and then its over." The "self" does not dwell about. In a few weeks we think back to the dangerous night slept in the dark without firewood and celebrate we survived it. There is no "fixed" self being carried around, because there is no society to remember and fix it for us. But actually society doesn't really do this, we project a fixed self onto other people. We think they have a fixed view of us, think we have to pretend to be whoever we think they think we are. Pretend to make some fixed thing. Its true in a way with long term, relationships that we feel a need to maintain the relationship, but a real relationship allows us to change and not be a fixed self. And that is also the true relationship we have with our self. It changes all the time.

So there is a subtle ambiguity in language that when teacher says "you said that" it can be perfectly correct that I said "loser", I mean no one else did, so it was me. But that is different from saying my "soul" said it. "you" does not create a fixed soul called me. Abraham Lincoln said “Folks are usually about as happy as they make their minds up to be.” but we don't deduce that Abraham Lincoln is still alive. So we can say that I said "loser" to the teacher yesterday but it doesn't mean I must exist today. It can be "me" without me actually still existing. The "me" only exists while its being said!! Language somehow seems to suggest there is a "person" that exists as long as the sentence so that when asked who said that we can tell who it was. But that "who" is long gone!!

So while "I am false" suggests a permanent self existing self actually its not that fixed and it does not exist outside context.

ok definitely out of time