Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Jorge Llamb�as <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/14/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > (I was trying to keep this as uncomplicated as possible -- but when you
> > simplify one place it always makes a probelm sowhere else).
> 
> If the goal of the exercise is to demonstrate the equivalence of the
> singularist and the pluralist models, wouldn't a simpler language,
> without variables, quantifiers, determiners and connectives do
> just as well? i.e. doesn't a language whose only terms are names
> already contain all the interesting ingredients for that purpose?

Probably, but the usual examples all seem to involve descriptors and the ultimate question here is
about "all."  I am setting up for later developments.

> Second question: wouldn't a model without mediating concepts
> (for either the singularist or the pluralist) be also equivalent to the
> models with concepts? i.e. a model where the interpretation is a
> function from terms to masses or C relates terms to masses, and
> predicates are interpreted as functions from terms into {0,1}?  Do
> concepts contribute anything in this simple language?

Not quite equivalent in the pluralist case.  So far as I can see at the moment, concepts (or
something like) are needed to make that model work (McKay simply uses sets without mentioning them
and burying the whole under a lot of antiset rhetoric, I am trying to avoid that and be a bit more
openabout what is going on).  Without concepts it is hard to see how to differentiate distributive
from non-distributive predication in the pluralsit case.  The singularist model doesn't need
concepts but Maxim is so set on an intermediary mentalism that I figured it wouldn't hurt and
might help.  It doesn't.