Refer: Christopher Langan, "An Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics", Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol. 13, no. 2, 2017

Accepting syntax is that part or aspect of the mechanical structure or programming of a computational automaton which enables it to accept or "recognize" input; the concept can be generalized to non-mechanistic transduction.

Now given that isomorphic content is the 'meaning' conveying, or as Hofstadter has it, the understanding part of language.

Does Langan see syntax as meaning free, or as conveying meaning on the metaphysical level? (And of course if this is a false dichotomy, please explain)

Bonus: Is there a way to reconcile these views?

EDIT: As Mauro points out the question steps all over the clearly defined distinction between 'semantics' and 'syntax'. The problem comes from the way Langan uses 'syntax' as some kind of semantic signifier, that is a pre-inpunt/(information transfer) 'flag' or 'header' that prompts a system to accept isomorphic input from another system.

  • Not clear... "Syntax is the set of rules, principles, and processes that govern the structure of sentences in a given language, usually including word order." Form a formal ppoint of view, only well-formed expressions, i.e. syntactically correct ones, have meaning. But meaning is semantics. Dec 28 '18 at 16:11
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA Edit. Any help in getting this clearer would be very welcome.
    – christo183
    Dec 28 '18 at 16:29
  • Assuming this is the same person, you should try contacting him directly. He apparantly answered a question here before. philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/47651/…
    – Cell
    Dec 28 '18 at 22:30
  • @ChristopherLangan Any illumination?
    – christo183
    May 6 '19 at 12:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.