Let me try to pin down where I am hsv= ing problems:

= From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com>
T= o: loj...@googlegroups.com
Cc: John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2012 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Revising mu'ei and CAhA= once again. Possible worlds.

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 7:34:28 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:

Well, = now I am more confused than before. What is the role of the second le= vel here, where the universe of worlds is also selected from a universe of = universes? Is there another sense of possibility involved here that i= s not obtainable in the ordinary one-tier system? Partly, this all se= ems backward to me. We generally start from the given world (obviousl= y) and then work outward to possibilities in various ways: changing circums= tances, changing history, changing laws, and so on. These are covered by different interworld connections, typically, or (what probably amounts to the same thing) by different structures placed o= n the universe. So, I suppose the different bags correspond to these differ= ent 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.

Let = me try to explain. There is a set of alternative worlds. Let's take the mid= dle set where we have both white and black balls.

So we have a set of balls (or bags of balls?

<= /div>

We have a set of balls. Bag is just a visualised idea of a se= t of balls. Each ball is one world that differs from the others in this set= in only one parameter: either the event happens or does not happen.

<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bord= er-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">

I'm sticking with balls for the moment) and we take a subset (how s= pecified? random?

It's only you who decides what balls= of what color in what number are present in the set. If you wanna be more = precise use {mu'ei} which allows specifying the number of black balls but i= t's not how most languages work.

saying it is the middle make= s no sense in a set, which is unordered). This set has both black and white balls (how do we know this?
=

I guess one white ball and at least one black ball is enough = ;to make {ka'e} work. Only in this case {ka'e} can result in {pu'i}.

<= div>

<= div>
If we picked it by this, then it is hard to s= ee what it is going to have to do with possibility, since that is exactly a= bout not picking).

It mean= s that it's us who chose exactly this set of balls and put them i= nto the bag, i.e. into consideration.

See above. I am not clear to what in the calculation of pos= sibility this correlates with,

No calculations of poss= ibility. Just a very rough estimate that says that {ka'e broda} =3D "this e= vent is possible, can happen"

{pu'i broda} =3D "well, this event = happened as it could happen at this time and, yes, it happened".

We don't know which of= the balls represents Our World. Our World doesn't exist yet. Still we beli= eve that there is a possibility for a black ball to be extracted. This is w= hat we call {ka'e} i.e. possibility or probability of being extracted.
<= br style=3D"font-style:italic">OK. = Now this looks like standard possibility, given that we know that neither black nor white is impossible

only in {ka'e} case of course.

(by whatever me= ans). By the way, I would leave pr= obability out of this, since that is a metrical notion that requires a much= more complex world structure.

I'm not against mu'ei. = Robin just stopped using it so I decided that it was something too complex = for colloquial lojban.

=

In case when we extract a black ball all Alter= native Worlds immediately disappear and we have only one world, Our World, = This World. This state is called {pu'i} i.e. demonstrated potential.
Well, strictly, this looks like ca'a, since pu'i seems = to me to have past reference, but since we seem to have is an English perfe= ct aspect, the difference is minor.
<= /div>

I st= rongly believe that there should be no tense aspects here. All cmavo of CAh= A set should have one meaning each. Otherwise, {pu'i} must be removed from = the language

But, in what sense do the othe= r worlds disappear?

When the event happe= ns or doesnot happen then all the other worlds disappear. If this eve= nt happens again we just apply identical sets of balls etc. as in the case = of the previous event but anyway it's a new event. A-level collapses into M= -level. But usually even M-level is just a single moment in time.

So we can only refer to it in our discourses.

They must still be there to support the notion of potent= ial, which can't be present (in any usual system) in a single world, and to= block off the notion of necessity.

<= /div>

Well= , you may imagine that white balls being disappointed that one of the black= balls has been extracted leave the bag and move into another bag of a new = event in a hope that next time one of them will be extracted. :D

In cas= e when we extract a white ball this potential hasn't been realized&nbs= p;and this situation is called {nu'o}.

Again, presumably the other worlds disappear and so we just have a non= -occurrence but not a potential occurrence to go unrealized.
We don't forget about A-level even after it disappears.
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bord= er-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">

In other bags where we have white balls only there is no choice. As .xorxes. said the result at M-leve= l is " just a consequence of all of them being white in = that bag. "
The same in case of black balls, i.e.= {bi'ai}.

That is, if we pick a un= iverse with only white balls, then whatever ball we pick is white.
It depends on what you call an event. In my scheme {bi'ai} is = black balls only. Therefore, {naka'e} is white balls only.

I guess that is bi'ai, although xorxes points to an obvious more clear reading. = ; But what, in the end, does this have to do with possibility, since here w= e have fixed the case so that the desired result is i= mpossible given the initial conditions -- but the initial conditions are just that the desired case be= impossible, which makes for an uninteresting situation.
=

Exactly. {naka'e} and {naka'ena=3Dbia'i} cases describe necessity theref= ore no speculations about the outcome. As both cmavo start with {naka'e...<= /div>

<= div style=3D"color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:times new roman,n= ew york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">

In= other words, when we move down to M-level the previous A-level disappears. It is actually similar to quan= tum physics theories where alternative realities collapse to one reality on= ly in the moment of observation by the observer. So Lojban looks lik= e an up-to-date instrument :)

But = here, of course, the "observer" has been mucking about from the get-go, cho= osing which bag to make the pick from. And the others don't disappear= , if we are really doing modals here.
<= /div>

Other bags? Only= a given number of balls were chosen and put into the bag. Probably there a= re other balls that don't get into the bag. They even don't get into the di= scourse.

Only the balls that we put get into the discourse.

Only one ball out of them that we pick out of the bag is something tha= t we observe.

=

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

Nor does pu'i; it= only talks about possibilities (or potentials, which might be somewhat dif= ferent, but that is not the present problem). What philosophies? = ; I don't even see two interpretations of possibility, let alone probabilit= y, here.

=

I think that {pu'i} is a former {ka'e} i.e. the res= ult of taking a black ballout of a {ka'e} bag.

{ca'a} doesn't dea= l with any bags.

anyway, what is in your opinion the difference b= etween {pu'i} and {ca'a}?

=
Both = philosophies are important.
John, sorry for your confusion. I kne= w only popular descriptionsof quantum physics when started drawin= g this scheme.
Probably we speak different languages. I just inve= nted my own in this scheme as I knew no other. .a'o this is the only reason= for misunderstanding.

I think thi= s is largely true, but I don't see= how quantum physics got into this brew in the first place. In one way of w= orking out Prior (temporal modalities) the multiple worlds interpretation o= f the probabilities involved in quantum physics is taken as a model for the= structure of time (without all the details, of course, or much of the unde= rstanding of what is happening in quantum physics) and that projects a cert= ain range of modal theories. But the association is merely handy and = nowise essential to modal logic.
=

That's what I wanted = to hear. Please, draw new "logical" schemes classifying CAhA. By far I have= n't seen any. Robin seems to have been confused as well.

I started with revising mu'ei. Yes, mu'ei due to PA can be much more = precise. 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.

mu'e= i seems a fairly pointless notion for mod= alities, since the count of possible worlds is rarely (if ever) a factor. It won't help a lot for proba= bility, either, since it is relati= ve sizes, not absolute one that play there (and the apparatus of logic, per= se, is not up to messing with that.

No= problem. We can fill A-level with complex cmavo that include mu'ei and ann= ounce {ka'e, bia'i} as obsolete cmavo.
But it won't affect M-leve= l and F-level. mu'ei isn't enough. It describes A-level only. Thi= s is what I came to.

OK. I just don't= see the need for A level at all. M and F seem to do all that is need= ed. What have I missed?

Where are you going to p= ut {ka'e}?

=

From= : Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.co= m>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2012 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Revising mu'ei and C= AhA 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...@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 loj...@googlegr= oups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban= +un...@ googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/ group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
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/-/8-rF3dxMZ7UJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googl= egroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/= lojban?hl=3Den.

--
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/-/-A= mVLyHDqfgJ.
=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.
------=_Part_152_13574874.1344400508962--