Philosophy Now Forum

I agree that P, Q, R ... etc have the meaning of being a variable or place-holder but we were talking about(I thought) the meaning of the terms or words that replace them when reasoning with logic?

Why not use the word "reason" instead of "meaningful thinking"?

Arising_uk wrote:Newtons mechanics will locally stand forever I think..

FYI - I just caught the end of a physics doco where they are looking at the possibility that Newtons law on gravity (the gravitational constant) may need to be revised! It appears to be breaking the physicists hearts at needing to do it. Its in relation to the effect of gravity on extremely large and small scales...the effect not being a constant.

attofishpi wrote:FYI - I just caught the end of a physics doco where they are looking at the possibility that Newtons law on gravity (the gravitational constant) may need to be revised! It appears to be breaking the physicists hearts at needing to do it. Its in relation to the effect of gravity on extremely large and small scales...the effect not being a constant.

See the word "locally"?

Arising_uk wrote:See the word "locally"?

Oh..i was wondering what you meant by that!

Arising_uk wrote:I agree that P, Q, R ... etc have the meaning of being a variable or place-holder but we were talking about(I thought) the meaning of the terms or words that replace them when reasoning with logic?

Why not use the word "reason" instead of "meaningful thinking"?

why not use only two words: yes, no?

yes, we were talking about meaning of the terms or words that replace them when reasoning with logic but is your reasoning logical? do you need logically reason also the meaning of the terms or words that replace them when reasoning with logic? so, the meaning of the terms or words that replace them when reasoning with logic, are also logical structures? "the meaning of whatever you replace P or Q with is not contained in Logic" if the meaning is logical structure?
sorry my english. i hope you get my point. or i write some more.