Message-Id: <m0rogBY-00007dC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 14 Mar 1995 22:19:17 +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: Truth
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sun, 12 Mar 95 06:40:15 EST.)
Content-Length: 2174
Lines: 53

Logic soap says:
> >When I look out of my window I don't see fictional people solving
> >fictional crimes. I see real people solving real crimes.
> >The proposition "S.H. solved many crimes" is true of the relevant
> >fictional world and false of this world.
> Maybe you see the world much more accurately than some others.

I perceive so...

> I think the line between perception and imagination is rather
> arbitrary at times.  I have no trouble with the predicate "solved"
> applying to imaginary solvers and imaginary crimes in exactly the
> same way that it applies to real solvers and real crimes.

I agree with both statements.

> I think that the imaginary world in such cases IS incorporated into
> the 'real world'.

This would make false statements true of the real world by virtue of
their being imagined. That's a job for {dahi}.

> Actual language use doesn't traditionally mark
> all imaginary things as irrealis, as far as I know, and in fact makes
> no distinction between 'real', 'perceived', and 'purely imaginary'.
> I think this is due to the differences being epistemological.

None of this strikes me as an impediment to defining meaning within
the framework of a given epistemology.

Lojban communication gets by fine without all this kerfuffle about
truth and worlds. That only becomes relevant when we delve into
literal, grammaticall-determined meaning, armed with truth-conditional
methods.

> One can treat a fictional world as an isolate from reality, but it is
> much harder to isolate reality from all epistemological variations on
> what is 'true'.

I don't claim to be able to do it actually, but I do claim to be able
to do it hypothetically, which is all that is necessary.

> >For example, "I described Sherlock Holmes" can be true of the real world.
> No, at least in the sense that you have talked of the real world, I
> don't think you are correct.  You can say "I described my idea of what
> Sherlock Holmes might look like if he were real", or "I stated Doyle's
> description of his character Sherlock Holmes".  In Lojban terms, you can
> describe losi'o da crlak. xolmez.

Okay. What is the syntax of {da cerlok. xolmes}?

---
And