Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 05:45:38 -0800 (PST)
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <1e6d5917-ad1e-4c5b-abb7-5deb92110b83@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2eR7Y+tzvQKa2VOV8uyLH3yCOgsUpGqKPzU3a1iDWvhLg@mail.gmail.com>
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>
 <d6efd1cb-67df-4eac-bbfa-594e398d752e@googlegroups.com>
 <52FE053C.3000604@gmx.de>
 <c4ed7ea2-88cb-42e9-85ab-2333b72628ac@googlegroups.com>
 <CAO7tK2eR7Y+tzvQKa2VOV8uyLH3yCOgsUpGqKPzU3a1iDWvhLg@mail.gmail.com>
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_1650_3048472.1392471938406"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_1650_3048472.1392471938406
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le samedi 15 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 10:55:19 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit :
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:36 PM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com <javascript:=
>
> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> It is because the following proposition is given as an axiom in the=20
>> universe of discourse (UD1) on the current topic.
>> P1:=20
>> ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo ku'o su'oi de zo'u de me da ijenai da me d=
e
>>
>
>  From P1 I get "no da me lo sidbo".
> =20
>


If another axiom that is equivalent to P3 were given on UD1, yes, we would=
=20
get "no da me lo sidbo". However, we did not give P3 or the equivalent as=
=20
an axiom on UD1.


=20

> In this universe of discourse, the following proposition is a theorem.
>> P2:
>> naku ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo zo'u lo sidbo cu me da
>>
>> As long as talking about UD1, we are forced to think that P2, that is,=
=20
>> there is no individual {lo sidbo}, because it is a proved theorem.
>>
>
>
> I don't see how P2 follows from P1.
>
> Also, in P2, "lo sidbo" could not refer to a single individual, but it=20
> could refer to two individuals. Suppose it refers to two individual ideas=
 I=20
> had this morning. Then P2 is true: It is not the case that for every X=20
> among those two ideas, those two ideas are among X" (in particular for ea=
ch=20
> one of the ideas, the two ideas are not among it. You must have meant=20
> something else.
>
>

Here is the proof of P2.

da'i=20
ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo zo'u lo sidbo cu me da (to lo se sruma toi)
iseni'ibo
naku su'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo ku'o naku zo'u lo sidbo cu me da
iseni'ibo
naku su'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo zo'u naku lo sidbo cu me da
iseni'ibo
naku su'oi da zo'u da me lo sidbo ije naku lo sidbo cu me da
iseni'ibo
naku su'oi da zo'u da me lo sidbo ijenai lo sidbo cu me da (to lo bridi xi=
=20
pa toi)

ita'o
ge
lo sidbo cu me lo sidbo (to lo se ckaji be zo me toi)
gi
ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo ku'o su'oi de zo'u de me da ijenai da me de=
=20
(to P1 toi)
iseni'ibo
su'oi de zo'u de me lo sidbo ijenai lo sidbo cu me de (to lo bridi xi re=20
toi)

iku'i=20
lo bridi xi re cu natfe lo bridi xi pa
iseni'ibo
naku ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo zo'u lo sidbo cu me da
uo

It is thus proved that {lo sidbo} is not an individual.

Moreover, it is also proved that {lo sidbo} is not individuals using a=20
property of jo'u:

da'i=20
lo sidbo cu me A jo'u B ije A jo'u B cu me lo sidbo ({lo sidbo} is=20
identical to A jo'u B)
ige
A me A jo'u B=20
gi
B me A jo'u B
iseni'ibo
ge
A me lo sidbo
gi
B me lo sidbo

i la'e di'u lu'u joi P1 cu nibli lo simsa be lo bridi xi re
iseni'ibo=20
ge
naku ro'oi da poi ke'a me A zo'u A cu me da
gi
naku ro'oi da poi ke'a me B zo'u B cu me da
uo

It is thus proved that {lo sidbo} is not individuals.


=20

>
>> Because neither P1 nor P3 is tautology, we are not forced to think that=
=20
>> one of them is always true for all the universes of discourse. We have=
=20
>> freedom to choose non-logical axioms and a universe of discourse accordi=
ng=20
>> to context.
>>
>>
> Even granting that, I think that what we're missing is some motivation fo=
r=20
> such a seemingly strange universe of discourse. Are there any predicates =
in=20
> natlangs that tend to behave that way? My prediction is that if there was=
=20
> some predicate broda that tended to satisfy P1, it would quickly tend to =
be=20
> replaced by another brode such that ro'oi da poi proda ku'o su'o de poi=
=20
> brode zo'u de gunma da, and then "lo brode", which would have individual=
=20
> referents, would be used instead of "lo broda".
>
>

I understand that giving an axiom
{ro'oi da su'oi de ro'oi di poi ke'a me de zo'u de me di ije de me da}
(for all X there is Y such that Y is individual and Y {me} X)
is very useful, and also necessary for conforming to mereology with atoms.=
=20

Still, we cannot assert this proposition to be a common axiom to all the=20
universes of discourse, because=20
"Something that needs to be noted in general: we, the BPFK, made a=20
consensus decision that we do not make rulings on ontological or=20
metaphysical issues."=20
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/How+to+use+xorlo

Asserting "ro'oi da su'oi de" as a common axiom is indeed an ontological=20
commitment, and violates the principle of xorlo.
=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_1650_3048472.1392471938406
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>Le samedi 15 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 10:55:19 UTC+9, xor=
xes 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;"><div di=
r=3D"ltr"><br><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8=
:36 PM, guskant <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_bl=
ank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"Z-86pQj1e1YJ" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D'jav=
ascript:';return true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D'javascript:';return true;">=
gusni...@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rg=
b(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><br></div></div><div>It is because the following=
 proposition is given as an axiom in the universe of discourse (UD1) on the=
 current topic.</div><div>P1:&nbsp;</div><div>ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo=
 ku'o su'oi de zo'u de me da ijenai da me de</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;From P1 I get "no da me lo sid=
bo".</div><div>&nbsp;</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><d=
iv><br></div><div>If another axiom that is equivalent to P3 were given on U=
D1, yes, we would get "no da me lo sidbo". However, we did not give P3 or t=
he equivalent as an axiom on UD1.</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;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><d=
iv><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,=
204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div></div><div>In this universe of discourse, the followi=
ng proposition is a theorem.</div><div>P2:</div><div>naku ro'oi da poi ke'a=
 me lo sidbo zo'u lo sidbo cu me da</div><div><br></div><div>
As long as talking about UD1, we are forced to think that P2, that is, ther=
e is no individual {lo sidbo}, because it is a proved theorem.</div></div><=
/blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I don't see how P2 follows f=
rom P1.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Also, in P2, "lo sidbo" could not refer to a single ind=
ividual, but it could refer to two individuals. Suppose it refers to two in=
dividual ideas I had this morning. Then P2 is true: It is not the case that=
 for every X among those two ideas, those two ideas are among X" (in partic=
ular for each one of the ideas, the two ideas are not among it. You must ha=
ve meant something else.</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div=
><div>Here is the proof of P2.</div><div><br></div><div>da'i&nbsp;</div><di=
v>ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo zo'u lo sidbo cu me da (to lo se sruma toi)=
</div><div>iseni'ibo</div><div>naku su'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo ku'o naku=
 zo'u lo sidbo cu me da</div><div>iseni'ibo</div><div>naku su'oi da poi ke'=
a me lo sidbo zo'u naku lo sidbo cu me da</div><div>iseni'ibo</div><div>nak=
u su'oi da zo'u da me lo sidbo ije naku lo sidbo cu me da</div><div>iseni'i=
bo</div><div>naku su'oi da zo'u da me lo sidbo ijenai lo sidbo cu me da (to=
 lo bridi xi pa toi)</div><div><br></div><div>ita'o</div><div>ge</div><div>=
lo sidbo cu me lo sidbo (to lo se ckaji be zo me toi)</div><div>gi</div><di=
v>ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo ku'o su'oi de zo'u de me da ijenai da me de=
 (to P1 toi)</div><div>iseni'ibo</div><div>su'oi de zo'u de me lo sidbo ije=
nai lo sidbo cu me de (to lo bridi xi re toi)</div><div><br></div><div>iku'=
i&nbsp;</div><div>lo bridi xi re cu natfe lo bridi xi pa</div><div>iseni'ib=
o</div><div>naku ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo zo'u lo sidbo cu me da</div>=
<div>uo</div><div><br></div><div>It is thus proved that {lo sidbo} is not a=
n individual.</div><div><br></div><div>Moreover, it is also proved that {lo=
 sidbo} is not individuals using a property of jo'u:</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>da'i&nbsp;</div><div>lo sidbo cu me A jo'u B ije A jo'u B cu me lo sidbo=
 ({lo sidbo} is identical to A jo'u B)</div><div>ige</div><div>A me A jo'u =
B&nbsp;</div><div>gi</div><div>B me A jo'u B</div><div>iseni'ibo</div><div>=
ge</div><div>A me lo sidbo</div><div>gi</div><div>B me lo sidbo</div><div><=
br></div><div>i la'e di'u lu'u joi P1 cu nibli lo simsa be lo bridi xi re</=
div><div>iseni'ibo&nbsp;</div><div>ge</div><div>naku ro'oi da poi ke'a me A=
 zo'u A cu me da</div><div>gi</div><div>naku ro'oi da poi ke'a me B zo'u B =
cu me da</div><div>uo</div><div><br></div><div>It is thus proved that {lo s=
idbo} is not individuals.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</d=
iv><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;=
border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote"><div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,2=
04,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><di=
v><br></div>
<div>Because neither P1 nor P3 is tautology, we are not forced to think tha=
t one of them is always true for all the universes of discourse. We have fr=
eedom to choose non-logical axioms and a universe of discourse according to=
 context.<br>
</div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Even gran=
ting that, I think that what we're missing is some motivation for such a se=
emingly strange universe of discourse. Are there any predicates in natlangs=
 that tend to behave that way? My prediction is that if there was some pred=
icate broda that tended to satisfy P1, it would quickly tend to be replaced=
 by another brode such that ro'oi da poi proda ku'o su'o de poi brode zo'u =
de gunma da, and then "lo brode", which would have individual referents, wo=
uld be used instead of "lo broda".</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div=
><div>I understand that giving an axiom</div><div>{ro'oi da su'oi de ro'oi =
di poi ke'a me de zo'u de me di ije de me da}</div><div>(for all X there is=
 Y such that Y is individual and Y {me} X)</div><div>is very useful, and al=
so necessary for conforming to mereology with atoms.&nbsp;</div><div><br></=
div><div>Still, we cannot assert this proposition to be a common axiom to a=
ll the universes of discourse, because&nbsp;</div><div>"Something that need=
s to be noted in general: we, the BPFK, made a consensus decision that we d=
o not make rulings on ontological or metaphysical issues."&nbsp;</div><div>=
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/How+to+use+xorlo</div><div><br></div><div>Assert=
ing "ro'oi da su'oi de" as a common axiom is indeed an ontological commitme=
nt, and violates the principle of xorlo.</div><div>&nbsp;</div></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_1650_3048472.1392471938406--