Message-Id: <m0rfe0O-00001GC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 18 Feb 1995 01:19:25 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Existence and occurrence of events (was: ago24 & replies)
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Fri, 17 Feb 95 13:16:44 PST.)
              <Pine.SUN.3.91.950217130446.6466A-100000@crl5.crl.com>
Content-Length: 2203
Lines: 44

pc:
> > The only way in which "try" implies "fail" is 'Gricean'.
> > I may be missing something, but to me it seems obvious that if
> > I try for an event and it turns out to be real then I have
> > succeeded. I cannot see how it could be otherwise.
>       Well, it might just come to pass without my effort being at all
> relevant to its coming to pass.  If an earthquake moves a stone from my
> path after my best efforts have failed, I cannot claim to have either
> managed or succeeded in moving the stone, even though I tried to and the
> stone is indeed moved.

I take your point.

> > >        And _nu_broda_ doesn't mean "is an event in some universe", since
> > > it is perfectly possible to _nu_ an impossible event and have it apply
> > > correctly -- to another impossible event, of course.
> > For all events, there is (he says omnisciently) a universe in which
> > the event is possible.
>       What about the event (state indeed) of being both blue and
> non-blue all over at the same time?  Or do you allow impossible universes
> (in which case, I withdraw my comments).

I allow universes in which what is impossible in other universes is
possible. So yes, I mean to allow impossible universes.

> > If existence in space/time is not a necessary condition of existence,
> > I cannot conceive of what other sorts of existence there might be.
>       Well, it is adequate for formal logic that there be a wellformed
> naming expression (name, description) for it.  Anything with such a
> lingistic item exists in the _da_ sense. (Quine would -- does, indeed --
> disagree but the paper where he disproves this claim was widely accepted
> as the best support the claim ever got; real nominalism.) It is not clear
> what "metaphysicsless" Lojban requiresand how that is related to _zasti_
> and that to English "exists."

"Adequate for formal logic" is not adequate, I opine, for Lojban.
For example, it is important for Lojban, though not (I presume)
for formal logic, that the membership criteria for x1 of gerku
and of mlatu are different. It is important that we roughly
agree on what {gerku} and {nu} (and other selbri) mean. Fortunately
we have no difficulty with {gerku}.

---
And