@logicallyindependt.bsky.social
There’s a bridge in Brisbane, Australia called the Go-Between Bridge. It’s named after the (excellent, btw) band The Go-Betweens.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Betw...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Betw...
Go Between Bridge - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
January 5, 2026 at 11:10 PM
There’s a bridge in Brisbane, Australia called the Go-Between Bridge. It’s named after the (excellent, btw) band The Go-Betweens.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Betw...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Betw...
Out: Newton
In: McTaggart
In: McTaggart
January 2, 2026 at 3:03 AM
Out: Newton
In: McTaggart
In: McTaggart
(btw I thought the “maybe-zero” clause in my weird numerical quantifier yielded “all Gs are Fs” without “all Fs are Gs” but I may well be cnfused.)
December 30, 2025 at 4:19 AM
(btw I thought the “maybe-zero” clause in my weird numerical quantifier yielded “all Gs are Fs” without “all Fs are Gs” but I may well be cnfused.)
(as some guy said in the thread). Looked for an “only the lonely” joke but the best I could do was: “What’s the basic meaning of ‘only’?” “‘Only’? ‘The lonely’.” I’ll be here all week. …
December 30, 2025 at 4:19 AM
(as some guy said in the thread). Looked for an “only the lonely” joke but the best I could do was: “What’s the basic meaning of ‘only’?” “‘Only’? ‘The lonely’.” I’ll be here all week. …
Thanks again. It’s indeed an interesting question why some languages have dedicated words for the two uses, and others don’t. Which remains even given there is a common idea to the uses of, roughly, some things being distinguished/isolated by a condition no others satisfy, and so being ‘lonely’. …
December 30, 2025 at 3:27 AM
Thanks again. It’s indeed an interesting question why some languages have dedicated words for the two uses, and others don’t. Which remains even given there is a common idea to the uses of, roughly, some things being distinguished/isolated by a condition no others satisfy, and so being ‘lonely’. …
… i.e. “Some perhaps-zero number of Fs are Gs, and they are uniquely so, i.e. uniquely Gs, i.e. no things other than they are Gs”. This is exactly “all Gs are Fs”, as we wanted.
Sorry for the prolixity, and thanks for reading if you got this far!
Sorry for the prolixity, and thanks for reading if you got this far!
December 29, 2025 at 1:44 AM
… i.e. “Some perhaps-zero number of Fs are Gs, and they are uniquely so, i.e. uniquely Gs, i.e. no things other than they are Gs”. This is exactly “all Gs are Fs”, as we wanted.
Sorry for the prolixity, and thanks for reading if you got this far!
Sorry for the prolixity, and thanks for reading if you got this far!
I.e. “Fs are Gs” becomes “Some perhaps-zero number of Fs are Gs”, and “Only Fs are Gs” becomes the result of applying “only/uniquely” as a sentence operator to that numerically quantified sentence, giving “Some perhaps-zero number of Fs are uniquely Gs”, …
December 29, 2025 at 1:41 AM
I.e. “Fs are Gs” becomes “Some perhaps-zero number of Fs are Gs”, and “Only Fs are Gs” becomes the result of applying “only/uniquely” as a sentence operator to that numerically quantified sentence, giving “Some perhaps-zero number of Fs are uniquely Gs”, …
Supposing that the reasoning I gave is adequate for explaining the difference between (1a+) “Only the Fs are Gs” and (1b) “The only Fs are G”, then doesn’t (1a-) “Only Fs are Gs” end up working the same way as (1a+), except with “the” replaced by the numeric. quantifier “some maybe-zero number of”?
December 29, 2025 at 1:39 AM
Supposing that the reasoning I gave is adequate for explaining the difference between (1a+) “Only the Fs are Gs” and (1b) “The only Fs are G”, then doesn’t (1a-) “Only Fs are Gs” end up working the same way as (1a+), except with “the” replaced by the numeric. quantifier “some maybe-zero number of”?
… adding the article gives something entailing (in ordinary speech) not just “all Gs are Fs” but also “all Fs are Gs”.
But for the record, what I was basically thinking was that a similar contrast does survive, in that on either version (1a) but not (1b) entails “all Gs are Fs”.
But for the record, what I was basically thinking was that a similar contrast does survive, in that on either version (1a) but not (1b) entails “all Gs are Fs”.
December 29, 2025 at 1:37 AM
… adding the article gives something entailing (in ordinary speech) not just “all Gs are Fs” but also “all Fs are Gs”.
But for the record, what I was basically thinking was that a similar contrast does survive, in that on either version (1a) but not (1b) entails “all Gs are Fs”.
But for the record, what I was basically thinking was that a similar contrast does survive, in that on either version (1a) but not (1b) entails “all Gs are Fs”.
Thanks for that - it was not a good choice of words on my part, with the plural version, to say that I assume that *the* contrast between (1a) “Only (the) Fs are Gs” and (1b) “The only Fs are Gs” survives the added bracket, since (as you said in relation to the singular version)…
December 29, 2025 at 1:35 AM
Thanks for that - it was not a good choice of words on my part, with the plural version, to say that I assume that *the* contrast between (1a) “Only (the) Fs are Gs” and (1b) “The only Fs are Gs” survives the added bracket, since (as you said in relation to the singular version)…
The former entails that all Gs are Fs, and the latter entails that all Fs are Gs, which was what we wanted to explain. We get the one notion of “unique(ly)” non-arbitrarily giving different readings when operating on a sentence vs within a def. desc. I hope I’m not missing the point!
7/n
7/n
December 28, 2025 at 7:57 PM
The former entails that all Gs are Fs, and the latter entails that all Fs are Gs, which was what we wanted to explain. We get the one notion of “unique(ly)” non-arbitrarily giving different readings when operating on a sentence vs within a def. desc. I hope I’m not missing the point!
7/n
7/n
So 2b is equiv to:
(3b) The F is G
The pred. ‘only/unique’ gets absorbed into the def. article.
Now we just redo that reasoning but with plurals. So equivalently to 1a and 1b we have:
(4a) The Fs are Gs, and they are uniquely so, i.e. nothing other than one of them is a G.
(4b) The Fs are Gs
6/n
(3b) The F is G
The pred. ‘only/unique’ gets absorbed into the def. article.
Now we just redo that reasoning but with plurals. So equivalently to 1a and 1b we have:
(4a) The Fs are Gs, and they are uniquely so, i.e. nothing other than one of them is a G.
(4b) The Fs are Gs
6/n
December 28, 2025 at 7:55 PM
So 2b is equiv to:
(3b) The F is G
The pred. ‘only/unique’ gets absorbed into the def. article.
Now we just redo that reasoning but with plurals. So equivalently to 1a and 1b we have:
(4a) The Fs are Gs, and they are uniquely so, i.e. nothing other than one of them is a G.
(4b) The Fs are Gs
6/n
(3b) The F is G
The pred. ‘only/unique’ gets absorbed into the def. article.
Now we just redo that reasoning but with plurals. So equivalently to 1a and 1b we have:
(4a) The Fs are Gs, and they are uniquely so, i.e. nothing other than one of them is a G.
(4b) The Fs are Gs
6/n
But 2b? In what sense is ‘the only/unique F’ there attributed *explicitly* the property of being ‘only’ or ‘unique’? It might depend on context, but by default it would be only that of being *uniquely F*, i.e. being such that nothing other than it is F, which is redundant given Russell.
5/n
5/n
December 28, 2025 at 7:04 PM
But 2b? In what sense is ‘the only/unique F’ there attributed *explicitly* the property of being ‘only’ or ‘unique’? It might depend on context, but by default it would be only that of being *uniquely F*, i.e. being such that nothing other than it is F, which is redundant given Russell.
5/n
5/n
(In math contexts, 2a might be read more weakly, but equiv holds for ordinary speech.) Yes, the F is uniquely an F, in virtue of being Russell-wise *the* F, but that is another matter, implicit rather than explicit in 3a as written. The explicit “uniquely” is modifying in effect the predicat “is G”
December 28, 2025 at 6:53 PM
(In math contexts, 2a might be read more weakly, but equiv holds for ordinary speech.) Yes, the F is uniquely an F, in virtue of being Russell-wise *the* F, but that is another matter, implicit rather than explicit in 3a as written. The explicit “uniquely” is modifying in effect the predicat “is G”
E.g. The only/unique Frenchman is a gambler.
The difference is that the “only” in (2a) is functioning as a sentence operator, but in (2b) as some sort of predicate inside the def. description.
Equiv to (2a)
(3a) The F is a G and it is uniquely so, i.e. uniquely a G, nothing other is a G
3/n
The difference is that the “only” in (2a) is functioning as a sentence operator, but in (2b) as some sort of predicate inside the def. description.
Equiv to (2a)
(3a) The F is a G and it is uniquely so, i.e. uniquely a G, nothing other is a G
3/n
December 28, 2025 at 6:43 PM
E.g. The only/unique Frenchman is a gambler.
The difference is that the “only” in (2a) is functioning as a sentence operator, but in (2b) as some sort of predicate inside the def. description.
Equiv to (2a)
(3a) The F is a G and it is uniquely so, i.e. uniquely a G, nothing other is a G
3/n
The difference is that the “only” in (2a) is functioning as a sentence operator, but in (2b) as some sort of predicate inside the def. description.
Equiv to (2a)
(3a) The F is a G and it is uniquely so, i.e. uniquely a G, nothing other is a G
3/n
I’m going to assume the contrast survives the bracketed “the” here:
(1a) Only (the) Fs are Gs
(1b) The only Fs are Gs
Let’s simplify the issues by looking at a version without plurals:
(2a) Only/uniquely the F is a G
E.g. Only/uniquely the Frenchman is a gambler
(2b) The only/unique F is a G.
2/n
(1a) Only (the) Fs are Gs
(1b) The only Fs are Gs
Let’s simplify the issues by looking at a version without plurals:
(2a) Only/uniquely the F is a G
E.g. Only/uniquely the Frenchman is a gambler
(2b) The only/unique F is a G.
2/n
December 28, 2025 at 6:28 PM
I’m going to assume the contrast survives the bracketed “the” here:
(1a) Only (the) Fs are Gs
(1b) The only Fs are Gs
Let’s simplify the issues by looking at a version without plurals:
(2a) Only/uniquely the F is a G
E.g. Only/uniquely the Frenchman is a gambler
(2b) The only/unique F is a G.
2/n
(1a) Only (the) Fs are Gs
(1b) The only Fs are Gs
Let’s simplify the issues by looking at a version without plurals:
(2a) Only/uniquely the F is a G
E.g. Only/uniquely the Frenchman is a gambler
(2b) The only/unique F is a G.
2/n
The way I’m seeing it, the issue doesn’t turn on any fancy linguistics, but only a scope issue in good old-fashioned logic (as someone noted up thread). Also relates to the determiner vs adjective thing. But not via “only”’s conventionally being used in unrelated ways in different places. 1/n
December 28, 2025 at 6:19 PM
The way I’m seeing it, the issue doesn’t turn on any fancy linguistics, but only a scope issue in good old-fashioned logic (as someone noted up thread). Also relates to the determiner vs adjective thing. But not via “only”’s conventionally being used in unrelated ways in different places. 1/n
- For Your Eyes Mainly
- The Spy Who Didn‘t Need to Define His Relationship With Me
- The Spy Who Didn‘t Need to Define His Relationship With Me
December 26, 2025 at 2:56 PM
- For Your Eyes Mainly
- The Spy Who Didn‘t Need to Define His Relationship With Me
- The Spy Who Didn‘t Need to Define His Relationship With Me
Not a criticism, but this is similar to the Nietzche-lite alt-right line that secular liberal humanism is just Christian morality in disguise. Can more or less agree with this without accepting the alt-right inference that this discredits liberal humanism.
December 21, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Not a criticism, but this is similar to the Nietzche-lite alt-right line that secular liberal humanism is just Christian morality in disguise. Can more or less agree with this without accepting the alt-right inference that this discredits liberal humanism.
Look, if he‘s just asking questions that are good enough for Locke, they‘re good enough for me
December 21, 2025 at 1:48 PM
Look, if he‘s just asking questions that are good enough for Locke, they‘re good enough for me
Don’t get me wrong, would still be rude, but, y‘know, more thoughtful
December 21, 2025 at 1:33 PM
Don’t get me wrong, would still be rude, but, y‘know, more thoughtful
You can get this with STEM too - physicists who don’t know that Karl Popper is dead, mathematicians who are actually platonists but will tell you they are formalists. But it’s less annoying cos they don’t think of it as part of their job - they just want something to say so they can get on with it.
December 21, 2025 at 12:44 PM
You can get this with STEM too - physicists who don’t know that Karl Popper is dead, mathematicians who are actually platonists but will tell you they are formalists. But it’s less annoying cos they don’t think of it as part of their job - they just want something to say so they can get on with it.
Could take it as a mixed review: “absolute fuckhead, but highly moral”
December 21, 2025 at 12:13 PM
Could take it as a mixed review: “absolute fuckhead, but highly moral”
Hanania’s version is still bad, tho
December 8, 2025 at 1:20 PM
Hanania’s version is still bad, tho