Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:53:55 +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 <pille@mac.com>
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <F1717miR9Odutox7nye0000011d@hotmail.com>
Message-Id: <8FA05977-4194-11D7-A8B7-000393B76BE4@mac.com>
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Content-Length: 5664


Am Sonntag, 16.02.03 um 03:28 Uhr schrieb Jorge Llambias:

> But I think you can observe without naming, and you could also
> name what can't be observed. You yourself talked about "the name
> for that which can not be observed", so obviously you are making
> a distinction between things that can be named and things that
> can be observed.

the observation of (that wich can not be observed)
the name for (that wich can not be observed)

same thing

>>>> They can refer to themselves (they can refer to one of their 
>>>> operations and thus mark this side of the difference between 
>>>> themselves and their environment), but they can not operate in the 
>>>> unmarked space of lo'i velbo'e se velbo'e. Any talk about things 
>>>> that are not luman zei nunzga are actually beyond what they can 
>>>> deal with.
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you are saying here. An apple presumably
>>> is not a luman zei nunzga, it is not an event of observing, and
>>> yet the system can talk about apples.
>>
>> Yes. Lo Apple is not a luman zei nunzga. But a luman zei nunzga can 
>> be called by the name it gave to the space it marked.
>
> That's metonymy, isn't it? Using the same name for the space
> marked and for the operation of distinguishing that space. That
> can only lead to confusion, it seems to me.

happens all the time.
"brode le selbo'e be da" is regularly confused with "brode da" or even 
just "da".
Talk about the real da is actually just talk about an observation that 
calls something the "real thing".

>> The metatalk is a luman zei nunzga. Your reference to apples is a 
>> luman zei nunzga. What you are referring to is an observation.
>
> Yes, but it is not the same luman zei nunzga that I'm talking about.
> A given nunzga distinguishes a certain state, and gives it a name.
> The way I refer to that state need not be the same name that the
> nunzga that I'm talking about uses.

Of course. A luman zei nunzga is just an event. So it takes new luman 
zei nunzga to keep the reproduction of the system going.

When you want to refer to the marked state of any luman zei nunzga you 
only know the name it gave to that state. You don't know what state it 
discribed. You need to try different names and see what you get as 
replies to figure out something about the state. The knowledge of the 
system about states is just lo selci'e be lo velbo'e.

>>> I don't know. I haven't yet grasped where you are going with
>>> all this. I understand the idea of an observation as an
>>> operation whereby one makes a distinction and names one side
>>> of the distinction, but I don't understand the point of the
>>> place structure you propose. It seems that a place structure
>>> like: "x1 gives name x2 to x3 which is distinguished from x4"
>>
>> The system does not give the name. The operation does that. So this 
>> part of your definition is flawed. When we translate "le velbo'e cu 
>> velbo'e da" as "The system observes 'X'" That's a very naturalistic 
>> translation. The correct translation should be "The system is a 
>> system that has as one of it's elements an operation that 
>> distinguishes 'x'" (I need to figure a more mathematically exact 
>> definition of X4 that makes that clear).
>>
>> The operation does not know anything about x3. All it does is draw a 
>> distinction and name one side.
>
> Right, so we have the following components:
>     1- the maker of the distinction and namer
>     2- the name given
>     3- the side named
>     4- the side unnamed
>
> There is no need for the operation to know anything.

The operation does not give you the side. It just gives you a name for 
the side. So when you use any description of X3, you need to make 
assumptions. But when we want to figure out how different velbo'e are 
structured, we want to make as little prior assumptions as possible.

Thats what scientific terms are made up for: Have a clear definition 
that make as little prior assumptions as possible and define those few 
assumptions that have to be made.

>> The difference of your X2 and your X3 already requires another 
>> operation. So you would have to make the definition of your X3 
>> recursive, just like I did with my latest version of my definition 
>> for terbo'e. You will then notice that your X3 and your X4 are 
>> defined exactly the same way. So your X3 is redundant.
>
> I don't understand what you mean.

There must be a difference between your X2 and your X3, and you want to 
have different contents in X2 and X3, right? Why else would you want to 
have that additional X3? So it takes an operation of distinguishing and 
calling to fill those places.  We already supplied 2 places to refer to 
the two sides of the distinction of the operaton. An additional place 
is redundant.

>
>> Take a look at the quote from Laws of Form in one of my previous 
>> posts. Spencer Brown is not talking about things. He is talking about 
>> a space that's divided into two spaces (and he uses space in a 
>> mathematical/logical sense, not as physical space with 3 dimensions). 
>> Then one of the sides of that division is marked. Not any specific 
>> things on that side but the side.
>
> Ok. x1: the one doing the division and marking
>    x2: the mark
>    x3: the side that gets the mark

"Let the state be known by the mark. Call it the marked state."
X3 is redundant.

>    x4: the side that doesn't get the mark
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
>
>
Bye,
    Jan.

--
Jan Pilgenroeder
Theaterstr. 59
52062 Aachen