Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.21 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.21;
Message-ID: <52F8FAA2.9030009@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:13:22 +0100
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
References: <CAN2DD_E0QBcidfV+rp=N+rW1YeYtOanugo172BbgwFmswA2-SA@mail.gmail.com> <52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de> <5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@googlegroups.com> <52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de> <a337096c-d88e-4387-a3d7-9642195e72af@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2fqC3RQkHDE5unLx-z+5U4VU2nWempwEnzDAcpyB810pw@mail.gmail.com> <372dd8f1-1920-4afa-8d11-aa55696982a0@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2f+f5tebxR-eH5UAx8mkOJAaZnM3Es2syyOdcMHZpn0qw@mail.gmail.com> <03555bbd-cc44-426f-94ee-65d557f2d301@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2d1U9Z=ZJ6sPaP++huPE+zE_dCGqXsrJ80jk4c5M+Y_GQ@mail.gmail.com> <592497c0-5db5-420e-867f-8df1663eca27@googlegroups.com> <52F65A5C.90605@gmx.de> <348c23bf-6d9f-4a05-bfe7-69b141c03cb7@googlegroups.com> <52F776EE.6070406@gmx.de> <6ffd64d2-2e2c-4b83-8722-b7f262f5837a@googlegroups.com> <52F7A4D5.5070106@gmx.de> <56096dec-1969-420d-b4e5-b8539cbe0cc0@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <56096dec-1969-420d-b4e5-b8539cbe0cc0@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> Le lundi 10 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 00:55:01 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit : Woul=
d you
> say that {lo sakta cu me lo najnimryjisra}? For me it would be a very
> definite No.
>
> No, but the current topic is not similar to that but to {lo re prenu
> cu me lo mu prenu}.

Okay, then we still don't understand each other. I (mis-)understood your
{linji} example in a way that is very much like {lo sakta cu me lo
najnimryjisra} and you said my graphical representation described your
views correctly. But judging by your further claims, I now think that
that cannot be the case. So you must have meant something else.

> {lo linji} in that universe of discourse are not individuals but an
> infinite number of non-individuals, because every {lo linji xi my}
> has always another {lo linji xi ny} such that {lo linji xi ny cu me
> lo linji xi my i ku'i naku lo linji xi my cu me lo linji xi ny}, and
> this proposition contradicts the condition for individual {RO DA poi
> ke'a me lo linji xi my zo'u lo linji xi my cu me DA}. Therefore,
> every {lo linji} is neither an individual nor individuals.

Let's try again. Let's use something that can just as easily be imagined=20
to be infinite: {lo sidbo}. There are infinitely many possible ideas and=20
thoughts. Let's say that {lo sidbo} contains *all* of them and therefore=20
has infinitely many referents.

I will enumerate all the referents of {lo sidbo} as s1, s2, s3...

1)  [ s1 , s2 , s3, s4 , ... ]

continuing indefinitely.

This first infinitely huge {lo sidbo} can be (randomly) split apart like=20
this:

2)  [ [ s1 , s312 , s15 , ... ] , [ s3 , s9232 , ... ] , [ ... ] ]

Where each sub-bracket again contains infinitely many things that=20
{sidbo} and each sub-bracket is among {lo sidbo} from step 1.

We can repeat this process infinitely often for each new sub-grouping,=20
making more and more sub-groupings which will get smaller and smaller=20
with each step, but will always remain infinite. (Each grouping will=20
also represent a possible value for a plural variable)

Do you agree up to this point?

If so, why do you think that this entails that {lo sidbo} does not refer=20
to one or more individuals?

In reality, the []-brackets don't actually do anything other than select=20
multiple values at once. They don't create new individuals, which would=20
happen with sets or "masses".

This is as far as I can get trying to understand your argument. Why any=20
of this should indicate that we can sometimes deal with things other=20
than individuals is still completely unclear to me.

For me the situation is very simple: Each of the s_x above is an=20
individual and {lo sidbo} refers to all of them.

Individuals are not a special case to me, they are the only case.

And maybe this helps: Do you see a difference between "referent" and=20
"individual"? What do you consider the difference to be?

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o


--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.