Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:15:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.88]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18jlJA-0007Hj-00 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:15:36 -0800 Received: from asmtp01.mac.com (asmtp01-qfe3 [10.13.10.65]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id h1EJFZ3X012101 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:15:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mac.com ([80.142.149.118]) by asmtp01.mac.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id HABC5Y00.PIZ for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:15:34 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 20:15:49 +0100 Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: closed systems error Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: Jan Pilgenroeder To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-archive-position: 120 X-Approved-By: pille@mac.com X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: pille@mac.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 5262 Am Freitag, 14.02.03 um 16:30 Uhr schrieb Jorge Llambias: > > la ian cusku di'e > >> I repeat the definition of the operation again: >> >> .ica'e lu luman zei nunzga li'u cu brivla >> le si'o gasnu le logji nunsei >> gi'e snigau fi le se nunsei kei >> le zgana se zukte ku >> ce'o lo se nunsei ku >> ce'o lo te nunsei ku >> ce'o le zgana poi ciste fi pisu'o lo'i luman zei nunzga vau >> la lojban > > That's easier to understand because you talk about the > things being separated rather than the labels > given to one part and not given (!) to the other. Having a > place for a label not given was very odd. I am not sure yet, if it is a good idea to have X2 and X3 be things instead of symbols. >> (I got rid of the nu'o, the sumti are optional anyway, so I don't >> need it. > > This may be a confusion. The argument places are not optional, > in the sense that there must always be a value even if it is > not explicitly stated. It is optional to ellipsize the value, > if context makes it clear what the value is or it is not > important to specify it, but there has to be a value for the > relationship to hold. When you want to cancel the argument > place you need to do it explicitly with {zi'o}. > >> I also made sure I talk about systems of subsets of luman zei nunzga) > > So your definition is recursive: You define {luman zei nunzga} > in terms of {luman zei nunzga}. Well, X1 is defined as "zgana se zukte". So, the velbo'e takes the place of the implied le zukte. But look at what le zukte is doing. You can just take a pen and a peace of paper, close your eyes and draw a circle on the paper (that's the distinction) and place a cross somewhere (you mark one of the sides). "nunzga" or "zgafau" would almost seem sufficient to describe that. The recursiveness of this definition of nunzga depends on how much of an act of volition this observation is. I think I should change the definition to "nunzga". Volition is not really something we know anything about yet. So we should not have it in this basic definition. But velbo'e definitely is recursive. And that's fine, because we are talking about Systems of operations, and hardly anybody would try to find some mystic volition there. BTW: You just gave me an idea. How about this? .ica'e lu luman zei nunzga li'u cu brivla le si'o gasnu le logji nunsei gi'e snigau fi lo se nunsei kei le nunzga ku ce'o lo se nunsei ku ce'o lo se luman zei nunzga be lo te nunsei be'o ku ce'o le zgana poi ciste fi pisu'o lo'i luman zei nunzga vau la lojban Now the unmarked state really is unmarked until it is observed (and that means we will get a new difference and a new unmarked space in return). Now this takes care of the situation where someone thinks about some fruit and says "I want an Apple" and someone else answers "Yeah, Windows sucks" :-) >> So now we can say: >> >> .i le velbo'e goi ko'a cu velbo'e >> le velbo'e be da poi velbo'e ke'a ku'o >> le velbo'e be de poi na ka'e velbo'e ke'a >> >> The selbo'e of this observation is something the system can deal with. > > Is it the same system that you put in x1? Using {le} here > is confusing, I can't tell whether {le velbo'e} refers > each time to different systems or to the same system. > I suppose you don't mean {ko'a velbo'e ko'a ko'a}, or > do you? Can x2 and x3 hold the same value? Weren't > they the two parts that got created in the separation? Hey cool, we are getting right to some core philosophical problems here ;-) Let's assume le velbo'e is a social system: The system is made up of observations that have been expressed in communications. Then it's obvious that the velbo'e needs time to observe itself. The utterances need to be made, and they won't be understood if everybody talks at once. The system changes with each new observation. The same is true for psychical systems (made up of brode in the mind of one person). Social and psychical systems are the only real manifestations of velbo'e I can think of. The only alternative would be the ideal velbo'e of Plato. So, the different instances of velbo'e we talk about will be different from each other. The different velbo'e could also be different psychical and social systems. .i le mi'o velbo'e goi ko'a cu velbo'e le mi'o velbo'e be da poi velbo'e ke'a ku'o le la pavbudjo velbo'e be de poi na ka'e velbo'e ke'a >> The terbo'e can be observed, but the system gets to a point where it >> gets in trouble (or rather: may get in trouble when it gets caught). > > {le velbo'e be da poi na ka'e velbo'e ke'a} is an odd > description. It can only work thanks to the non-veridicality > of {le}. It is similar to {le broda poi ke'a na broda}, so > a description that may be suggestive of something, but certainly > not veridical. > >> This example also shows that the system is fine as long as it only >> observes its observations: >> >> "brode le brode le brode" always works. > > Is that meant to be {brode vo'a vo'a}? How can x2 and x3 > be the same thing, given that by definition they are the > two things that got separated in the observation? Nope, that's just a missing "be" should have been: brode le brode be le brode Bye, Jan. -- Jan Pilgenroeder Theaterstr. 59 52062 Aachen