[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[lojban-beginners] Re: closed systems error


la ian cusku di'e
The Problem is: Systems can draw a distinction between the name for "that wich can be observed" and the name for "that wich can not be observed", and that's a valid luman zei nunzga. 

Originally you talked about a distinction between "that which
is named" and "that which is not named". Now you are making
a distinction between the name for "that which can be observed"
and the name for "that which can not be observed", which however
can still be named.
To observe is to distinguish AND to name. You can't name something if you don't distinguisch it from something else. So observing and naming is equivalent. 

In that case, why not just use {cmene}?

But I think you can observe without naming, and you could also
name what can't be observed. You yourself talked about "the name
for that which can not be observed", so obviously you are making
a distinction between things that can be named and things that
can be observed.
They can refer to themselves (they can refer to one of their operations and thus mark this side of the difference between themselves and their environment), but they can not operate in the unmarked space of lo'i velbo'e se velbo'e. Any talk about things that are not luman zei nunzga are actually beyond what they can deal with. 

I don't understand what you are saying here. An apple presumably
is not a luman zei nunzga, it is not an event of observing, and
yet the system can talk about apples.
Yes. Lo Apple is not a luman zei nunzga. But a luman zei nunzga can be called by the name it gave to the space it marked. 

That's metonymy, isn't it? Using the same name for the space
marked and for the operation of distinguishing that space. That
can only lead to confusion, it seems to me.
The systems can only deal with symbols. When we talk or think about things, we really only deal with symbols. So, when we allow for things in X2 and X3 of velbo'e we insert something that is not a valid operation of those systems. By allowing the observation of things we actually break the operational closure. 

You seem to be mixing what the systems talk about with what
we say about the systems. I can say "The system doesn't
observe apples, it can only deal with the symbol 'apple'."
Then I am referring to apples, something which I claim that
the system can't do, but which I can do in the metatalk about
the system.
The metatalk is a luman zei nunzga. Your reference to apples is a luman zei nunzga. What you are referring to is an observation. 

Yes, but it is not the same luman zei nunzga that I'm talking about.
A given nunzga distinguishes a certain state, and gives it a name.
The way I refer to that state need not be the same name that the
nunzga that I'm talking about uses.


I don't know. I haven't yet grasped where you are going with
all this. I understand the idea of an observation as an
operation whereby one makes a distinction and names one side
of the distinction, but I don't understand the point of the
place structure you propose. It seems that a place structure
like: "x1 gives name x2 to x3 which is distinguished from x4"
The system does not give the name. The operation does that. So this part of your definition is flawed. When we translate "le velbo'e cu velbo'e da" as "The system observes 'X'" That's a very naturalistic translation. The correct translation should be "The system is a system that has as one of it's elements an operation that distinguishes 'x'" (I need to figure a more mathematically exact definition of X4 that makes that clear).
The operation does not know anything about x3. All it does is draw a distinction and name one side. 

Right, so we have the following components:
    1- the maker of the distinction and namer
    2- the name given
    3- the side named
    4- the side unnamed

There is no need for the operation to know anything.
The difference of your X2 and your X3 already requires another operation. So you would have to make the definition of your X3 recursive, just like I did with my latest version of my definition for terbo'e. You will then notice that your X3 and your X4 are defined exactly the same way. So your X3 is redundant. 

I don't understand what you mean.
Take a look at the quote from Laws of Form in one of my previous posts. Spencer Brown is not talking about things. He is talking about a space that's divided into two spaces (and he uses space in a mathematical/logical sense, not as physical space with 3 dimensions). Then one of the sides of that division is marked. Not any specific things on that side but the side. 

Ok. x1: the one doing the division and marking
   x2: the mark
   x3: the side that gets the mark
   x4: the side that doesn't get the mark

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail