Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:23:57 -0800 (PST)
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <d6efd1cb-67df-4eac-bbfa-594e398d752e@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <52F8FAA2.9030009@gmx.de>
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>
 <52F8FAA2.9030009@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_3964_18186227.1392071037061"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_3964_18186227.1392071037061
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le mardi 11 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 01:13:22 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :
>
> la .guskant. cu cusku di'e=20
> > Le lundi 10 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 00:55:01 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit : Wo=
uld you=20
> > say that {lo sakta cu me lo najnimryjisra}? For me it would be a very=
=20
> > definite No.=20
> >=20
> > No, but the current topic is not similar to that but to {lo re prenu=20
> > cu me lo mu prenu}.=20
>
> Okay, then we still don't understand each other. I (mis-)understood your=
=20
> {linji} example in a way that is very much like {lo sakta cu me lo=20
> najnimryjisra} and you said my graphical representation described your=20
> views correctly. But judging by your further claims, I now think that=20
> that cannot be the case. So you must have meant something else.=20
>
> > {lo linji} in that universe of discourse are not individuals but an=20
> > infinite number of non-individuals, because every {lo linji xi my}=20
> > has always another {lo linji xi ny} such that {lo linji xi ny cu me=20
> > lo linji xi my i ku'i naku lo linji xi my cu me lo linji xi ny}, and=20
> > this proposition contradicts the condition for individual {RO DA poi=20
> > ke'a me lo linji xi my zo'u lo linji xi my cu me DA}. Therefore,=20
> > every {lo linji} is neither an individual nor individuals.=20
>
> 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.=20
>
> I will enumerate all the referents of {lo sidbo} as s1, s2, s3...=20
>
> 1)  [ s1 , s2 , s3, s4 , ... ]=20
>
> continuing indefinitely.=20
>
> This first infinitely huge {lo sidbo} can be (randomly) split apart like=
=20
> this:=20
>
> 2)  [ [ s1 , s312 , s15 , ... ] , [ s3 , s9232 , ... ] , [ ... ] ]=20
>
> Where each sub-bracket again contains infinitely many things that=20
> {sidbo} and each sub-bracket is among {lo sidbo} from step 1.=20
>
> 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)=20
>
> Do you agree up to this point?=20
>
>

Yes.

=20

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

{lo sidbo} does not refer to one or more individuals, because, for every=20
{lo sidbo xi my}, there is another {lo sidbo xi ny} such that {lo sidbo xi=
=20
ny cu me lo sidbo xi my i naku lo sidbo xi my cu me lo sidbo xi ny},=20
 therefore {lo sidbo xi my} does not satisfy the condition for being an=20
individual {RO DA poi ke'a me lo sidbo xi my zo'u lo sidbo xi my cu me DA}.=
=20
It means that there is no individual {lo sidbo} in this universe of=20
discourse. Therefore {lo sidbo} is neither an individual nor individuals.


=20

> 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".=20
>
> 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.=20
>
> 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.=20
>
>

Each of the s_x above is non-individual because of the proof mentioned=20
above.


=20

> Individuals are not a special case to me, they are the only case.=20
>
> And maybe this helps: Do you see a difference between "referent" and=20
> "individual"? What do you consider the difference to be?=20
>


Yes. The identity of referent is defined as follows:
"X are the same thing as Y" =3Dca'e {X me Y ije Y me X}

On the other hand, "an individual" is defined as follows:
"X is an individual" =3Dca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me X zo'u X me DA}

Examples:
- {by jo'u cy} and {cy jo'u dy} are not the same referent because {naku=20
zo'u by jo'u cy me cy jo'u dy ije cy jo'u dy me by jo'u cy};
- {by jo'u cy} and {cy jo'u by} are the same referent because {by jo'u cy=
=20
me cy jo'u by ije cy jo'u by me by jo'u cy};
- {by jo'u cy} is not an individual, because {by me by jo'u cy i naku by=20
jo'u cy me by}, therefore {by jo'u cy} does not satisfy the condition for=
=20
an individual {RO DA poi ke'a me by jo'u cy zo'u by jo'u cy me DA}.
- if no other referent besides {by} is x1 of {me by}, then {by} is an=20
individual because {RO DA poi ke'a me by zo'u by me DA} is true in this=20
universe of discourse.
=20

--=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.

------=_Part_3964_18186227.1392071037061
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>Le mardi 11 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 01:13:22 UTC+9, selp=
a'i a =C3=A9crit&nbsp;:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0=
;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">la .gus=
kant. cu cusku di'e
<br>&gt; Le lundi 10 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 00:55:01 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit=
 : Would you
<br>&gt; say that {lo sakta cu me lo najnimryjisra}? For me it would be a v=
ery
<br>&gt; definite No.
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; No, but the current topic is not similar to that but to {lo re pre=
nu
<br>&gt; cu me lo mu prenu}.
<br>
<br>Okay, then we still don't understand each other. I (mis-)understood you=
r
<br>{linji} example in a way that is very much like {lo sakta cu me lo
<br>najnimryjisra} and you said my graphical representation described your
<br>views correctly. But judging by your further claims, I now think that
<br>that cannot be the case. So you must have meant something else.
<br>
<br>&gt; {lo linji} in that universe of discourse are not individuals but a=
n
<br>&gt; infinite number of non-individuals, because every {lo linji xi my}
<br>&gt; has always another {lo linji xi ny} such that {lo linji xi ny cu m=
e
<br>&gt; lo linji xi my i ku'i naku lo linji xi my cu me lo linji xi ny}, a=
nd
<br>&gt; this proposition contradicts the condition for individual {RO DA p=
oi
<br>&gt; ke'a me lo linji xi my zo'u lo linji xi my cu me DA}. Therefore,
<br>&gt; every {lo linji} is neither an individual nor individuals.
<br>
<br>Let's try again. Let's use something that can just as easily be imagine=
d=20
<br>to be infinite: {lo sidbo}. There are infinitely many possible ideas an=
d=20
<br>thoughts. Let's say that {lo sidbo} contains *all* of them and therefor=
e=20
<br>has infinitely many referents.
<br>
<br>I will enumerate all the referents of {lo sidbo} as s1, s2, s3...
<br>
<br>1) &nbsp;[ s1 , s2 , s3, s4 , ... ]
<br>
<br>continuing indefinitely.
<br>
<br>This first infinitely huge {lo sidbo} can be (randomly) split apart lik=
e=20
<br>this:
<br>
<br>2) &nbsp;[ [ s1 , s312 , s15 , ... ] , [ s3 , s9232 , ... ] , [ ... ] ]
<br>
<br>Where each sub-bracket again contains infinitely many things that=20
<br>{sidbo} and each sub-bracket is among {lo sidbo} from step 1.
<br>
<br>We can repeat this process infinitely often for each new sub-grouping,=
=20
<br>making more and more sub-groupings which will get smaller and smaller=
=20
<br>with each step, but will always remain infinite. (Each grouping will=20
<br>also represent a possible value for a plural variable)
<br>
<br>Do you agree up to this point?
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Yes.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;mar=
gin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">If so, why =
do you think that this entails that {lo sidbo} does not refer=20
<br>to one or more individuals?
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>{lo sidbo} does not ref=
er to one or more individuals, because, for every {lo sidbo xi my}, there i=
s another {lo sidbo xi ny} such that {lo sidbo xi ny cu me lo sidbo xi my i=
 naku lo sidbo xi my cu me lo sidbo xi ny}, &nbsp;therefore {lo sidbo xi my=
} does not satisfy the condition for being an individual {RO DA poi ke'a me=
 lo sidbo xi my zo'u lo sidbo xi my cu me DA}. It means that there is no in=
dividual {lo sidbo} in this universe of discourse. Therefore {lo sidbo} is =
neither an individual nor individuals.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><=
div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin=
-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">In reality, th=
e []-brackets don't actually do anything other than select=20
<br>multiple values at once. They don't create new individuals, which would=
=20
<br>happen with sets or "masses".
<br>
<br>This is as far as I can get trying to understand your argument. Why any=
=20
<br>of this should indicate that we can sometimes deal with things other=20
<br>than individuals is still completely unclear to me.
<br>
<br>For me the situation is very simple: Each of the s_x above is an=20
<br>individual and {lo sidbo} refers to all of them.
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Each of the s_x above i=
s non-individual because of the proof mentioned above.</div><div><br></div>=
<div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;=
">Individuals are not a special case to me, they are the only case.
<br>
<br>And maybe this helps: Do you see a difference between "referent" and=20
<br>"individual"? What do you consider the difference to be?
<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Yes. The identity of refere=
nt is defined as follows:</div><div>"X are the same thing as Y" =3Dca'e {X =
me Y ije Y me X}</div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand, "an individual=
" is defined as follows:</div><div>"X is an individual" =3Dca'e {RO DA poi =
ke'a me X zo'u X me DA}</div><div><br></div><div>Examples:</div><div>- {by =
jo'u cy} and {cy jo'u dy} are not the same referent because {naku zo'u by j=
o'u cy me cy jo'u dy ije cy jo'u dy me by jo'u cy};</div><div>- {by jo'u cy=
} and {cy jo'u by} are the same referent because {by jo'u cy me cy jo'u by =
ije cy jo'u by me by jo'u cy};</div><div>- {by jo'u cy} is not an individua=
l, because {by me by jo'u cy i naku by jo'u cy me by}, therefore {by jo'u c=
y} does not satisfy the condition for an individual {RO DA poi ke'a me by j=
o'u cy zo'u by jo'u cy me DA}.</div><div>- if no other referent besides {by=
} is x1 of {me by}, then {by} is an individual because {RO DA poi ke'a me b=
y zo'u by me DA} is true in this universe of discourse.</div><div>&nbsp;</d=
iv></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

------=_Part_3964_18186227.1392071037061--