Message-Id: <m0sUUwe-0000ZHC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 8 Jul 1995 03:55:14 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      selci, molecular theory and masses
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 3621
Lines: 75

>> *molecule, x1 is a cell/atom/unit/| of x2; x1 is an indivisible, most basic
>> subunit of x2 /:/ (x2 generally has mass nature) /=/ selci (sle)
>>
>> Sounds discrete to me. Note the conceptual basis of /selci/ - "indivisible,
>> most basic subunit" The recipe for making a rice grain is contained in a
>> discrete DNA molecule, and discrete entities are *instances* not
>> *quantities*
>
>I'm afraid you lost me.  Are you saying that {rismi selci} should be a
>DNA molecule?  I may agree with that.  I don't think we are in much
>disagreement as to the meaning of {selci}.

The recipe for a cake is not a cake.  The recipe for making a rice grain
is not a rice grain.  The map is not the territory.  If you cut a grain
of rice in half, the part-grain may not have all of the properties of a
grain of rice - or of a mass.

5 grains of rice are "5 instances of a grain of rice", and anywhere from
1 to 5 "quantities of rice".  "lo rismi" is at least one grain of rice,
but who knows how much exactly.  "pa rismi" is slightly more specific -
it is 1 quantity of rice, but you don't know the size of the unit -
which must be specified using BAI or left unstated but obvious in
context.  In most contexts for the case of rice, I would presume "one
rice" to be a single grain.

> >The essential properties of water we experience every day are lost long
> >before you break water into molecules.
>
> This seems to me like a very odd way of thinking. The essential properties
> of water are in fact due to its molecular structure. The hydrogens are
> rapidly oscillating back and forth, on average maintaining less than a 180
> degree angle to each other.

Who cares WHY the properties are?  The claim of lo djacu is that it
display THE qualities of water, not the REASONS for the qualities.
Water, at least in its liquid form, is "wet".  Water dissolves sugar.  I
wash my hands in water.  These are the things people say about water.  A
molecule of water is not wet, does not dissolve sugar and cannot wash my
hands.

Loglan/Lojban is a language to be spoken by real people, people who
don't know, and don't need to know, the reasons why things are the way
they are.  And I dare say that we don't really know why water is "wet"
for all the scientific explanations.  For that matter, all of science
remains a theory, a model that may closely resemble reality but need not
actually be reality.

> The bulk properties of water derive from its molecular properties, and can
> actually be calculated with a fast computer.

subtraction derives from addition of an inverse, but subtraction is a
distinct concept from addition.

> >Nobody says {djacu} is infinitesimally divisible.
>
> I disagree. This is exactly what defining /djacu/ as continuous rather than
> discrete means. Consider the though experiment:

Lojban is metaphysically neutral on the question of infinite
divisibility.  Since it has "selci" it clearly has the notion of a basic
subunit.  Since it has "gunma", it has the notion of an indefinitely (if
not infinitely) subdividable mass.  The examples of "lo broda" that we
are talking about here do not necessarily stipulate whether the
individual units are gunma or selci.

> The lojban dictionary does NOT support your assertion that /loi djacu/ is
> preferred to /lei djacu/

The Lojban dictionary wouldn't say.  It defines "djacu", and not "loi
djacu" or "lei djacu".  In any event, as I have pointed out elsewhere,
the Lojban dictionary is limited by the fact that it is written in
English which is vague, and constrained severely by a need to keep
definitions small, which may mean further vagueness.

lojbab