Received: from mail-yh0-f55.google.com ([209.85.213.55]:43121) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WEi8y-0000zO-Rp for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:31:16 -0800 Received: by mail-yh0-f55.google.com with SMTP id f73sf3523602yha.20 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:31:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=+V7nSezfdiee+zvmpbfKAwSAB+d26Xzg/Tpp5p1V9xs=; b=EHjNAjBSqBB91EZRyBYncvX5Jq1fVQ9G6VJWYw7wAaVN6qa1eqPBGfhtyG3jesdr86 5LvsQ6C2CPfH25FoHbG+64RVwJO0b2Hne9wXKbLfMKHJH1aTLhQwl18tUQXOfq+CBQO6 A4USeY68r3asJiro0DIr+sJofZK1Gq5sK6+lfs24Gdlcyi57wjcNBTgiuP8MpU9JSa4+ Q78rKX4un8fKxSk21FDa+Q/oByoeqVJ0OTztVr8AHO+MKMXPDdxd8dT3egCUHmb6C8Cv LoiGB6J6sfl+RNn4D/UlNl6n+e1hBzZQtOQwqPb7Fizh4U7x2zQIVqx6/UvNvzIi+uJH vs3g== X-Received: by 10.50.2.100 with SMTP id 4mr162515igt.8.1392481862084; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:31:02 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.254.35 with SMTP id af3ls373117igd.5.canary; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:31:01 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.166.199 with SMTP id zi7mr6630163pab.30.1392481861574; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:31:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-x236.google.com (mail-vc0-x236.google.com [2607:f8b0:400c:c03::236]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hh7si1630767vdb.1.2014.02.15.08.31.01 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:31:01 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c03::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c03::236; Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id id10so10120424vcb.41 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:31:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.37.1 with SMTP id tc1mr5751041vcb.32.1392481861219; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:31:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.221.72.74 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:31:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1e6d5917-ad1e-4c5b-abb7-5deb92110b83@googlegroups.com> References: <52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de> <5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@googlegroups.com> <52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de> <372dd8f1-1920-4afa-8d11-aa55696982a0@googlegroups.com> <03555bbd-cc44-426f-94ee-65d557f2d301@googlegroups.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> <52FE053C.3000604@gmx.de> <1e6d5917-ad1e-4c5b-abb7-5deb92110b83@googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 14:31:01 -0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c03::236 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11334c38b1b92e04f2747248 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --001a11334c38b1b92e04f2747248 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:45 AM, guskant wrote: > > > Le samedi 15 f=E9vrier 2014 10:55:19 UTC+9, xorxes a =E9crit : > >> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:36 PM, guskant wrote: >>> >>> >>> It is because the following proposition is given as an axiom in the >>> universe of discourse (UD1) on the current topic. >>> P1: >>> ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo ku'o su'oi de zo'u de me da ijenai da me = de >>> >> >> From P1 I get "no da me lo sidbo". >> >> > If another axiom that is equivalent to P3 were given on UD1, yes, we woul= d > get "no da me lo sidbo". However, we did not give P3 or the equivalent as > an axiom on UD1. > Why doesn't "no da me lo sidbo" follow directly from just P1? Suppose "no da me lo sidbo" is false. Then "su'o da me lo sidbo" is true. Then "su'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo ku'o no'oi de zo'u de me da ijenai da me de", which contradicts P1. So under P1, "no da me lo sidbo" must be true= . > > Here is the proof of P2. > Yes, sorry, P2 does follow from P1. I was confused about something else. P2 says that lo sidbo is not a single individual. But from P1 you can derive a stronger theorem, not just that lo sidbo is not one individual, but also that there are no individuals at all among lo sidbo. > Moreover, it is also proved that {lo sidbo} is not individuals using a > property of jo'u: > Indeed, that follows from P1, but not just from P2. I was slightly confused because P2 is too weak for what I thought you were saying, which is that lo sidbo is not one or more individuals. 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= . > > Still, we cannot assert this proposition to be a common axiom to all the > universes of discourse, because > "Something that needs to be noted in general: we, the BPFK, made a > consensus decision that we do not make rulings on ontological or > metaphysical issues." > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/How+to+use+xorlo > (That page has a few of strange assertions, so I would take it with a grain of salt, but I agree about not making rulings on ontological or metaphysical issues.) > Asserting "ro'oi da su'oi de" as a common axiom is indeed an ontological > commitment, and violates the principle of xorlo. > I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm just curious about what are the things you could say that don't involve individuals. What type of discourse would you analyse as taking place in a universe without individuals? mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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. --001a11334c38b1b92e04f2747248 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:45 AM, guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:

Le samedi 15 f=E9vrier 2014 10:55:19 UTC+9, xorxes a = =E9crit=A0:

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:36 PM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is because the following= proposition is given as an axiom in the universe of discourse (UD1) on the= current topic.
P1:=A0
ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo = sidbo ku'o su'oi de zo'u de me da ijenai da me de

=A0From P1 I get "no da me lo s= idbo".
=A0
If= another axiom that is equivalent to P3 were given on UD1, yes, we would ge= t "no da me lo sidbo". However, we did not give P3 or the equival= ent as an axiom on UD1.

Why doesn't "no da me lo si= dbo" follow directly from just P1?=A0

Suppose= "no da me lo sidbo" is false. Then "su'o da me lo sidbo= " is true. Then "su'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo ku'o n= o'oi de zo'u de me da ijenai da me de", which contradicts P1. = So under P1, "no da me lo sidbo" must be true.
=A0
=A0

Here is the proof of P2.

Yes, sorry, P2 does follow from P1. I was confused abou= t something else. P2 says that lo sidbo is not a single individual. But fro= m P1 you can derive a stronger theorem, not just that lo sidbo is not one i= ndividual, but also that there are no individuals at all among lo sidbo.
=A0
Moreover, it is also proved that {lo sidbo} is not individuals using a p= roperty of jo'u:

Indeed, that follows from P1, but no= t just from P2. I was slightly confused because P2 is too weak for what I t= hought you were saying, which is that lo sidbo is not one or more individua= ls.=A0


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= .=A0

Still, we cannot assert this proposition to b= e a common axiom to all the universes of discourse, because=A0
"Something that needs to be noted in general: we, the BPFK, made = a consensus decision that we do not make rulings on ontological or metaphys= ical issues."=A0


=A0
Asserting "ro'oi da su'oi de" as a common axiom is ind= eed an ontological commitment, and violates the principle of xorlo.


mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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.
--001a11334c38b1b92e04f2747248--