Well, now = I am more confused than before. What is the role of the second level = here, where the universe of worlds is also selected from a universe of univ= erses? Is there another sense of possibility involved here that is no= t obtainable in the ordinary one-tier system? Partly, this all seems = backward to me. We generally start from the given world (obviously) a= nd then work outward to possibilities in various ways: changing circumstanc= es, changing history, changing laws, and so on. These are covered by = different interworld connections, typically, or (what probably amounts to t= he same thing) by different structures placed on the universe. So, I suppos= e the different bags correspond to these different structures, but, unlike = the case in the usual theories, there does not seem to be a systematic way of distinguishing them. To say that an event is necessary in a u= niverse in which it occurs in every world is not very illuminating -- unlik= e saying it is necessary in every universe in which all the present laws of= physics hold, say. But then, rather than one notion of possibility applied= in different universes, I would explain matters in terms of different noti= ons of possibility applied to one universe -- not that it probably makes an= y difference in results.

= From: Gleki Arxokuna <gl= eki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To:<= /span> lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2012 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Revising mu'ei and= CAhA once again. Possible worlds.

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 2:34:44 AM UTC= +4, xorxes wrote:

On M= on, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Gleki Arxokuna
<gleki.is.my.nam= e@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK. If no other criticism I'll correct it and post it to lojban.org wik= i.

Strictly speaking, "ka'e" only says that the bag contains black balls.
It doesn't say whether it also contains white balls or not, although
pragmatically one expects that it will, just as when someone says
"some" one pragmatically expects "but not all" to be true as well.

Similarly "ka'e na" would say that the bag contains white ball, saying
nothing about whether it contains black ones as well.

I believe that here we must postulate the meaning of = {ka'e}.

Yes, we don't mean that the must be at least one white ba= ll. We don't know it.

And in this scheme we probably even don't w= ant to determine the number

of white balls.

Howev= er, {bi'ai} and {naka'e} speak about the probability =3D1 of balls of one c= olor present in the bag.

In order to say that it contains both black and white balls you may
need something like "su'opame'iro mu'ei", "in some but not all
worlds". "May or may not", as opposed to just "may".

I'd put "bi'ai" at the same level as "ka'e",

OK. done.=

it's not= really about
materialization. That the ball picked is black is just a consequence
of all of them being black in that bag, so of course the one that
materializes will be as well, but "bi'ai" has nothing to do with the
materialization itself. Similarly it's not all that relevant to "na
ka'e" that the ball picked is white, it's just a consequence of all of
them being white in that bag.

mi tugni

> Are there still other voices for mu'ei?

"mu'ei" allows a more fine grained description of the contents of the
bags, "so'u mu'ei", "so'o mu'ei", "so'i mu'ei", "so'e mu'ei", "so'a
mu'ei", "du'e mu'ei", "rau mu'ei", "mo'a mu'ei".

.ie

mu'o mi'e xorxes

The new version of the = scheme attached in two formats. Now it includes F-level where {ca'a} is pla= ced.

Is everyone able to open this file?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://= groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/3y2jrrLWCgsJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.