From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Jun 03 11:58:47 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 52460 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2006 18:58:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jun 2006 18:58:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2006 18:58:41 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmbKO-0005hY-Hw for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:58:28 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmbIf-0005gn-3x; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:56:42 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:56:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmbID-0005gb-TP for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:56:14 -0700 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmbIC-0005gS-Fz for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:56:13 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so832618ugd for ; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:56:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.216.20 with SMTP id o20mr1899346ugg; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:56:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.255.6 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 11:56:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 12:56:11 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20060603162029.74094.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060603162029.74094.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-archive-position: 11716 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:3:4:0 X-eGroups-From: "Maxim Katcharov" From: "Maxim Katcharov" Reply-To: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=oCb6_sV8e2OBQn7tdbhJUrSzexdjB1ipv-hJK9fBM5EzOMaaVw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26136 On 6/3/06, John E Clifford wrote: > so here is where I have gotten to so far. Since > it seems to strike an important point, I jump in > here. > > --- Maxim Katcharov > wrote: > > On 5/29/06, Jorge Llambías > > wrote: > > > On 5/28/06, Maxim Katcharov > > wrote: > > What are you talking about when you say "the > > students"? You don't mean: > > > > 1) each student individually > > 2) that quantity of students together > > > > so what is it that you mean? Show me how and > > what "the students" > > refers to. If it does not refer to (1), then > > your argument falls prey > > to my white dog example. I can expound on this > > concept of a mass, with > > examples etc. Same goes for the concept of > > "each student". I doubt > > that you'll be left anything to explain your > > position with once you > > start explaining. The pluralist view relies on > > not looking too deeply > > at what "the students" means, because once you > > do you see that it's > > either (1) or (2). > > This position assumes that reference is a > functionfrom one referring espression to one > object. There is no necessity to this > restriction. Logic just as well if reference is > merely a relation, between one referring > expression and several objects. Nothing For the sake of being understood, let's outline some terms: Mass: "the mass of X", "together the X", or {loi X}, etc. That is, one entity composed of [...]. Set: the mathematical sort of set, which is itself a real entity (rather useless to our discussion, I think). Bunch: what I'd defined a set as, and what xorxes refers to as "20 students" etc. However, "20 students" could also have the mass or set interpretation. When we call them a "bunch", we simply mean that there is more than one student. We have no commitment to an actual "bunch" entity. It's as if it were a marker that it's not a mass or a set. Is that reasonable? Now, the position of plural predication is that it can treat bunches of "20 students" either individually, or "together" (but not in the sense of "as a mass"). So the *bunch* of 20 students can both wear hats *and* surround the building. (Additionally, xorxes suggests various other groupings.) I understand this, and I see how it can work, but I also see it as flawed. What /is/ the relationship between the referring expression and the objects? First there's the relationship between the students and the hats. We aren't explicit, but it's the 'individual' sort of relationship, where one-for-one each student wears a hat. This is as it would be in normal logic. Then, there's the relationship between the students and the building. Now, we assert that *the students* surround the building, and not the mass of them. However, each student is not a "true" surrounder himself. So what is the relationship between the expression and the objects? I'm not talking about the relationship between the bunch and the surroundment of the building - that's quite straightforward. I want to know the relationship between *Alice* and the surroundment of the building. I can't see one. The relationship that I see is "Alice, but only when seen from the perspective of being in the company of Bryce..Zoe, is a surrounder of the building", or something like that, though xorxes has said that this is not what the relationship is. Mass: Alice is part of the composite entity that surrounds the building Set: Alice is part of the set... which doesn't surround the building, because these sort of sets don't do anything useful (from our perspective) except have sizes etc. Bunch, individually: We are not treating Alice this way, so this does not apply. (It would be the case if she was wearing a hat.) Bunch, together (but not in the sense of mass or group): Alice's relationship to the surroundment of the building is ??? I can't think of the relationship, and none has been suggested. I strongly suspect that "bunch, 'together'" is actually a mass that is trying to sneak itself in under the guise of "but I don't /think/ of the concept of mass (which is true), and so it must be that there isn't one". So, what is the relationship between Alice and the building? Or the surroundment of the building? (Alice being one of the 26 students that surround it.) > significant changes logically -- all the old > rules apply, the theorems are unchanged and so > on. Personally, I find it hard to think this way > for long stretches, but that is just old, > well-engrained, habits. I bridge the gap by > thinking in terms of bunches. but is just my > thinking; it says nothing about what there really > is. And the locutions of the logic langauge are > the same whichever way I think. The goal here is > to bring Lojban -- the logical language in just > this sense -- into line with the logic language. > It turns out this takes very little; at most > adding devices for indication mode of > predication, which, as noted, were needed anyhow, > at least occasionally. > > > > > It's a type of thing > > > > that can be clearly recognized - we even > > have names for it: crowd, > > > > mob, swarm. > > We have all sorts of expressions that look like > they refer to things. In many cases, we know > that they do not, but we use them anyhow. It is > not clear that these are not more cases of the > same sort. What is an example of a relevant case where they do not? > > Then what surrounds the building? Please give > > an explanation, > > hopefully a detailed one, as opposed to a vague > > 2-word answer. > > There is nothing vague about "the students." > What could be more precise and still true (given > a nominalist metaphysics, say -- but that is not > even necessary). "The students" could be used as mass, a bunch (individually), and a bunch (together/plurally). I wouldn't (shouldn't) call that "vague" either - I'd call it ambiguous. . > > That sounds very nice, but no, it's quite > > different. 1 through 5 are > > all questions regarding the relationship - > > where did the act occur, by > > what means did it occur, etc. 6 is a question > > regarding the sumti - > > are we treating these men as a mass/plural, or > > individually? So let's > > rephrase: > > This is one interpretation of the distinction, > but not the only one and not one that the logic > forces on us. It is just a picture in your head, > not a reality in the world. Though the whole > event may be a reality, your interpretion of it > is only yours. While you recognize that I am assuming one interpretation when arguing against this point, you miss that xorxes is also assuming an interpretation, the contrary one, as he suggests the point. The purpose here is not to argue for our interpretations, but to argue for the consequences of our interpretations. Really, my response to xorxes' "but look, these are similar under my interpretation" is "but they aren't similar under mine". > < of X" and > "X" at the same time (there is no superclass).>> > > Of course, xorxes is not doing this, since he > denies (quite legitmately) that he is referring > to the mass composed of X at all. > The issue is: is he, despite denying it and even without having a concept of "mass" in his mind, using a mass in the relationship? 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.