Date: Wed Jun 19 15:33:15 1991
Message-Id: <9106191515.AA17084@mwunix.mitre.org>
From: cbmvax!uunet!mwvm.mitre.org!m16569 (Carl Burke)
To: lojban-list%snark.thyrsus.com@mwunix.mitre.org
Subject: Mass terms (my two cents)
Status: RO

I'm afraid I don't quite see the problem here.  While it is indeed true that
the 'map is not the territory', and it is vital to keep this in mind (or it
WILL bite you... HARD!), massification provides a useful abstraction mechanism.
How else would YOU speak about conditions which hold true for practical
purposes over a category of 'things' (objects, abstractions, events, etc.)?
You can use specific quantifiers if you wish, and for precise reasoning it is
essential, but there should be no requirement for it...

I do see a problem now.  The problem is the definition of 'massification'.
Are your masses generic templates from which specific (and thus variable)
instances can be derived, or are they collections of entities from which
emergent properties can arise?  If emergents are expected, then you are
stating that 'Mr. Rabbit' or 'Mr. Society' have qualities which cannot be
ascertained by examination of any particular subset of rabbits or societies.
(as an aside, 'Ms. Gaia' is a misnomer unless you are talking about the
mass of Gaias in the universe, of which we so far have only one significant
member.  You would instead refer in some way to the mass of 'life' and
'non-life', to include the planet and environment...  Ooooooh. Complex!
Defining boundaries is difficult...)

Returning to the original digression, if you are using the mass operators
to form an abstraction about which you can make statements which apply to
every element forming the mass, you must be prepared to defend the truth
or falsity of your statement.  Just as in natural languages, the mere fact
that you state something to be true (such as 'loi xebro cu gerku prenu') does
not make it so; you can enter the realm of sophistry and demagoguery this way,
but then again, you can do so through the most 'scientific' of statements
as well.  Simply because Lojban is based upon predicate logic, and assertions
are presumed to be true, does not make them so and cannot be assumed!

This is just my opinion, worth what you paid for it.
Carl Burke
*
*        Carl