Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rh367-00001pC; Wed, 22 Feb 95 00:30 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1435; Wed, 22 Feb 95 00:30:39 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1432; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 00:30:38 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3742; Tue, 21 Feb 1995 23:26:45 +0100 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 13:56:27 -0800 Reply-To: "John E. Clifford" Sender: Lojban list From: "John E. Clifford" Subject: Re: events - repsonse to And X-To: lojban list To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199502210731.AA17244@mail.crl.com> Content-Length: 2944 Lines: 61 On Tue, 21 Feb 1995, Chris Bogart wrote: > >Lojbab: > >> I take this as meaning that invoking "lo [unicorn]" > >> alters the universe of discourse - not that it makes statements about > >> "reality" (whatever that is). > > >The source of my unhappiness is that it is not true that the very fact > >of talking about a unicorn shifts us into a universe of discourse where > >unicorns exist. "I drew a picture of a unicorn" doesn't. That can be > >true in the 100% real kickable world in which no unicorn exists. > > I drew a picture of a unicorn [which I saw yesterday on the way to work] > > mi finti le pixra be le pavseljirna > > I drew a picture of a unicorn [some variant of the "typical" unicorn] > > mi finti le pixra be le'e pavseljirna > > The first is transparent, and does indeed shift us into a different universe > of discourse; the second is opaque or archetypal or something, and the issue > doesn't arise, does it? pc: Actually, _pixra_ subjects are notoriously opaque so suject raised from descriptions of events in which the subject is depicted as involved. The parenthesis does tell us to flag this particular case as transparent and so, on Cowan's tale, shift universes. The typical anything is also an odd case, since, in the present fog about what that means, we are probably in the state where typicals may be archetypes of a sort and so exist (_zasti_ even) in realms where the bearers of the archetype do not. > >That said, John's point is usually valid, in the sense that for > >"A unicorn approached me" to be potentially true, we have to > >shift to a universe where unicorns exist. > > su'a You're saying that John's point is valid in transparent references, but > not in opaque ones, xunai? > > >I maintain that if we want to make statements that aren't vacuously > >true then they must be made in the context of some specific universe. > >If "several unicorns exist" automatically shifts us into a world where > >unicorns exist, that statement must be true. But if instead that > >statement means "in a specific universe, several unicorns exist", you > >can test the claim by examining that universe. > > Again, write it in Lojban. If the "several unicorns" sumti is a transparent > reference to a certain set of several unicorns, then it would appear to be > vacuously true. If it's an opaque reference to several le'e pavseljirna (or > however you think opaque refs should be expressed) then the claim may or may > not be true in a particular universe of discourse. > > Whatever the answer is here, I'm sure it ties back into the > transparent/opaque question, and we can't solve one without solving the other. pc: Well, it is clear (:)) that existence is not an issue about opaque contexts, since they are clearly somewhere else. It is unclear, though clearing what to do about transparent contexts. BTW dreams are another classic opaque context, so And's example is not a problem. pc>|83