From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 19 06:33:02 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 19 May 2006 06:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fh55s-00045h-LP for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 19 May 2006 06:32:40 -0700 Received: from web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.119]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fh55o-00045a-Mu for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 19 May 2006 06:32:40 -0700 Received: (qmail 88209 invoked by uid 60001); 19 May 2006 13:32:35 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=dDHNdtPn1V68YyjZzkKXKnTkMwts3mh2nljFBz20EnGoV75W0/m0JGruyzHlh4hL+lccrPmJsCgEaY+dqrBHgH0VhvpqIOwLnpboXdjtQyNN1ZZlJUdiw9t+Z8cAUPqbRnUtg9GQA35PZQB/bujrq/rdhN4bhtwknmm/q3NnSco= ; Message-ID: <20060519133235.88207.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.229.49] by web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 19 May 2006 06:32:35 PDT Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 06:32:35 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} To: lojban-list@lojban.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 11622 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list MK> < individual to > individual. This is rarely a practical problem, > especially if one > assumes that the speaker's bounds (assuming that > the bounds are > somewhat sensible) at the time they said it are > the bounds that should > be considered.>> > > This emendation is problematic for me since it > seems to say both that there is a single unique > set of everything that has a certain property and > also that this set may be different for different > people. How can this be? If the set is unique it > is not relative to a person and contrapositively. I don't like it either, but that seems to be the way it is. I don't believe that there's really a perfect/universal hypothetical set of bears. The definition of "adjacent", for example, doesn't imply any exact measurements, though it could: something like "if the distance between the objects in question is 10% or smaller than the average of both the object's average radii, then they are adjacent". If it had a definition like that (or better), then there would seem to be a universal definition of "adjacent". Can you imagine what a definition like that - a seemingly universal definition - would look like for "bear"? I can't. I don't want to. I'd rather put up with my bounds for "bear" not matching your bounds. The odds that we'll encounter a situation where we find ourselves disagreeing are tiny, and the odds of us not hastily resolving it are smaller still.>> I think that this admission is a tactical mistake. If the set of all bears (actual, possible, past, present and future, etc.) varies from person to person, then you have essentially conceded xorxes' point. First, if every person has such a set, then there is a maximal set which embraces all of these (their union -- available even for L-sets). Since, ex hypothesi, no one actually has this as his set, then no one really means ALL bears when he say {lo ro cribe}, only "all the things I think of as bears." Further, once you allow that what counts as a bear varies from person to person, you have to allow that for each person it varies with time (as it clearly does as the person grows in knowledge, but not obviously only that). And once you do that, the step to "it varies with the person's interests at the time" is hardly a step at all. And then we are at xorxes' place "all bears" is everything I count as a bear at the moment. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.