Well, now I am more confused than before. What is the= role of the second level here, where the universe of worlds is also select= ed from a universe of universes? Is there another sense of possibilit= y involved here that is not obtainable in the ordinary one-tier system?&nbs= p; Partly, this all seems backward to me. We generally start from the= given world (obviously) and then work outward to possibilities in various = ways: changing circumstances, changing history, changing laws, and so on.&n= bsp; These are covered by different interworld connections, typically, or (= what probably amounts to the same thing) by different structures placed on = the universe. So, I suppose the different bags correspond to these differen= t structures, but, unlike the case in the usual theories, there does not se= em 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.

In case when we extract a white ball this poten= tial hasn't been realized and this situation is called {nu'o}.

In other bags where we have white balls only there i= s no choice. As .xorxes. said the result at M-level is " just = a consequence of all of <= /span>them being white in that bag. "

The sam= e in case of black balls, i.e. {bi'ai}.

In other words, when we m= ove down to M-level the previous A-level disappears. It is actually similar= to quantum physics theories where alternative realities collapse to one re= ality only in the moment of observation by the observer. So Lojban l= ooks like an up-to-date instrument :)

As for F-lev= el it's just another philosophy. At first glance {pu'i} is like {ca'a} but = {ca'a} doesn't make any assumptions about the probability of such event.

Both philosophies are important.

John, sor= ry for your confusion. I knew only popular descriptionsof quantum= physics when started drawing this scheme.

Probably we speak diff= erent languages. I just invented my own in this scheme as I knew no other. = .a'o this is the only reason for misunderstanding.

I started with revising mu'ei. Yes, mu'ei due to PA can be much more preci= se. I just don't feel I wanna be so precise in my speech. Probably it's my = feeling. May be others would still like to use mu'ei.

No problem. We can fill A-level with complex cmavo that include mu= 'ei and announce {ka'e, bia'i} as obsolete cmavo.

But it won't af= fect M-level and F-level. mu'ei isn't enough. It describes A-level onl= y. This is what I came to.

=

From:<= /span> Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: 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 Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Gleki Arxokuna
<gleki.is.my.name@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@googl= egroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/= lojban?hl=3Den.