This hits to the core of CS, actually. Any definition of explicit to make your proposition work is equivalent to “computable”. any decent formalism of mathematics is computable.
Plug for implicit understanding though. Your very claim is not explicable; you can’t explicate the non existence of explicability. You can’t formally denote areas for which there’s no formal descriptions. This is the escape hatch out of logical realism (and yeah, that’s not an explicable claim, either; how fun!)
It has been striking to me how post-modern philosophy seems to have recentered itself around the questions of language... while «naming things» is considered one of the ~~two~~ three «hardest problems in CS» !
I’m not really bickering about names here, just trying to succinctly describe ideas.
The irony of the GGP comment is that it claims mathematical ideas are successful ones and philosophical ones aren’t, but that’s not a mathematical claim. So either it’s right and it’s wrong, or it’s wrong.
Not directly related, we're now surrounded by computers, which are even dumber (some forms of machine learning and analog computers aside ?) in that they have zero flexibility in treating symbols as something else...
> Any definition of explicit to make your proposition work is equivalent to “computable”. any decent formalism of mathematics is computable.
I am not sure that this is the case actually. Many results in mathematics only relate to the (non) existence of certain objects, without explicit recipes for finding (i.e., computing) them. And obviously philosophers started arguing whether an object that cannot be found actually exists or not :)
My favourite example this is Mark Braverman's demonstration that all Quadratic Julia sets are computable (as in computable real numbers: meaning that you can produce arbitrary fine approximations).
However, as Mark notes, this proof proceeds by deriving 5 alternative programs to do the computation. For any given Julia set parameter 'c' (given as a computable real number) one of the 5 programs will compute the Julia set. Which one? Who knows. It depends discontinuously on the properties of 'c'.
Proving non existence uses some type of law of excluded middle. It’s a very concrete and computable style of argument, although its subjects may not be.
Plug for implicit understanding though. Your very claim is not explicable; you can’t explicate the non existence of explicability. You can’t formally denote areas for which there’s no formal descriptions. This is the escape hatch out of logical realism (and yeah, that’s not an explicable claim, either; how fun!)