Question

There exists a category of syntactically valid declarative statements which appear intuitively like they are descriptions of reality - but which no possible measurement could distinguish from their negation, or indeed from any other claim.

It is clear enough that such statements are not viable scientific hypotheses.

It is clear enough that the statements contain various sentence fragments with meanings and clauses with meanings, and that the sum of the parts is, at least, the sum of the parts plus the fact of the parts being summed in that particular way, plus any associated feelings such a summation might impart.

However, if such a statement itself has any meaning more than that - a meaning which maps to the intuition of there being something that the statement means as a statement - I'm unable to determine what it might be.

I would like to know if there are any noteworthy positions on whether or not such statements can, in the sense described, mean anything at all. If they aren't meaningless, what sort of meaning can they have? I think it is the same question in other words to ask: are such statements propositions in the sense at SEP: Meaning?

Some possible examples follow. I think the first two might be syntactically meaningless for appropriately defined universe, but I'm including them because they also feel like they ought to mean something. I'm pretty confident that the last four aren't syntactically meaningless but are empirically indistinguishable from their negation.

A thousand light-years beyond the particle horizon of the universe, there is (is not) a man named Bob.

There exists (does not exist) another universe in which everyone is named Bob.

After the last conscious being dies, all matter in the universe will (will not) spontaneously coalesce into men named Bob.

Bob created the universe last Tuesday in exactly the configuration necessary to look as it does, fake memories and all. (The universe was not created thus.)

Bob has (doesn't have) free will.

Bob is a conscious being. (He is a philosophical zombie.)

Answer 1

Philosophical discussion about certain declarative statements challenges the nature of truth and the meaningfulness of unverifiable claims. Statements must typically possess a truth value, yet statements regarding unobservable phenomena lead to debate about their meaningfulness and status as propositions. Philosophers employ logic, principles such as noncontradiction, and the nuanced understanding of existential claims to navigate these complexities.

Step-by-step explanation:

Philosophical questions about the meaningfulness of certain declarative statements and their status as propositions involve deep inquiry into the nature of truth, meaning, and verification. In philosophy, particularly in the arenas of logic and epistemology, statements are expected to have a truth value; they must be either true or false. However, certain statements that are syntactically valid might not satisfy this criterion because they refer to unverifiable circumstances or rely on metaphysical presuppositions. For instance, statements about events outside of our observable universe or the existence of other universes are not empirically verifiable, which raises questions about their meaningfulness.

In considering truth, we reflect on Aristotle's definition, where a statement is true if it affirms what is the case. This notion is uncompromising when it comes to the correspondence between a statement and the reality it purports to describe. On the other hand, the principle of noncontradiction insists that a statement and its negation cannot both be true simultaneously, indicating that for any given proposition, there is one truth value. However, the complexity arises when we confront statements impossible to verify or falsify, leading to discussions about whether such statements can hold meaning or qualify as propositions.

Kant's perspective on existence being not a predicate and the inability to prove universal negatives also contribute to the conversation regarding what can be meaningfully asserted. Philosophers might alternatively argue that seemingly unverifiable statements, while not scientifically meaningful, could still have meaning in other contexts, such as expressing conceptual possibilities or guiding ethical considerations. These discussions reveal the intricate relationship between language, logic, and the limits of human understanding, and affirm the importance of continuous philosophical inquiry.