[lojban-beginners] Re: {da} and {zasti}

[guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>]

The definition of {zasti} itself is not important here. My point is to
make x1 of {zasti} be in {lo nu ... kei} so that {zasti} would be
explicitely free from any ontological duty. Because Lojban is
constructed on Quine's logic, the ontology of Lojban should conform to
Quine's ontology for consistency. Quine's semantical formula “To be is
to be the value of a variable” means that a statement says "there is"
if and only if the statement can be expressed in the form "∃xf(x)",
which can be expressed in Lojban with {da}. In my formula on {zasti},
the part {su'o da zo'u da me x1} says "there is" in the form
conforming to Quine's ontology; by putting it in {lo nu ... kei},
{su'o da zo'u da me x1} becomes free from any truth value. With this
formulation, x1 of {zasti} is free from any ontological duty, at the
same time it still says "there is" in the form conforming to Quine's
semantical formula.

2013/1/12 Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>:
> Taking your definition as is, it does not assert existence. It merely
> asserts that the x2 provides a frame of reference for making that decision.
> You would have to add a statement "...and decides that it actually does
> happen" (or with du'u, which is probably better here, "actually is the
> case"). I don't think trying to make a Lojban definition of {zasti} is going
> to prove very productive, myself, especially since the only approaches seem
> to be things like {manri} or {djuno} with djuno4, which are more poorly
> understood than {zasti} anyways.
>
> If we're going to try, I'm hesitant to just adopt your Lojban definition of
> {zasti}, because as I said {manri} is poorly understood. Personally I think
> both zasti2 and to a lesser extent manri3 are very strange. (Specifically, I
> think zasti2 is just entirely irrelevant to ontology, while manri3 should be
> encoded into the complex, currently poorly understood mass that is manri1.)
> I think "Whether x1 exists is decided by metaphysics x2" is something like
> {x2 manri lo du'u da me x1}, although even that is problematic for various
> xorlo reasons. (xorlo's {me}, by my current understanding, is a somewhat
> strange beast compared with xorlo's other predicates, as it is the only one
> with explicit access to the inside.)
>
> mi'e la latro'a mu'o
>

As for ME, I don't understand your point, but discussion about the
question on ME may fit for the main list, not for the beginners'.


> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 8:28 AM, guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Lojban is constructed on W.v.O.Quine's ontological standpoint (see the
>> Complete Lojban Language (CLL), 1.6). According to Quine (1948),
>> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_What_There_Is
>> "[...] Now how are we to adjudicate among rival ontologies? Certainly
>> the answer is not provided by the semantical formula “To be is to be
>> the value of a variable”; this formula serves rather, conversely, in
>> testing the conformity of a given remark or doctrine to a prior
>> ontological standard. We look to bound variables in connection with
>> ontology not in order to know what there is, but in order to know what
>> a given remark or doctrine, ours or someone else’s, says there is; and
>> this much is quite properly a problem involving language. But what
>> there is is another question."
>>
>> In my words, Quine means:
>> - the statement "∃xf(x)" says that "there is x that satisfies f(x)"
>> under an ontological point of view;
>> - this fact does not answer the question if there is REALLY such an x
>> that satisfies f(x).
>>
>> With xorlo, Lojban becomes more clearly conformable to Quine's
>> ontology.
>> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/How+to+use+xorlo
>> " [...] we, the BPFK, made a consensus decision that we do not make
>> rulings on ontological or metaphysical issues; that is, we will not
>> tell you whether phrase X has meaning or validity. [...]"
>>
>>
>> {zasti} is only a gismu: "f" of f(x); Lojban should not owe {zasti}
>> any ontological duty.
>> At present, jbovlaste does not have Lojbanic definition of {zasti},
>> but I would suggest the following definition:
>> {x1 zasti x2 x3} = {x2 manri lo nu su'o da zo'u da me x1 kei x3} = "x2
>> is a frame of reference/standard for observing/measuring/determining
>> the event that there is y that satisfies (y is x1) with/by rules x3."
>> Here, the ontological statement {su'o da zo'u da me x1} is in the
>> abstractor {nu ... kei}; the whole bridi therefore does not actually
>> make a claim that {su'o da zo'u da me x1} (this inference is mainly
>> based on the CLL, 9.7: "Example 7.1 claims that the plant grows, but
>> only refers to the event of watering it in an abstraction bridi [...]
>> without actually making a claim."); the whole bridi is therefore not
>> an ontological statement.
>>
>> {da} is a variable to be bound, which should concern the ontological
>> statement of Lojban.
>>
>> On these conditions, the statements of .arpis. are considered as
>> follows:
>> {da cevni} = {su'o da zo'u da cevni} = "∃x (x is god)" = "there is x
>> that satisfies (x is god)."
>> {lo cevni ku zasti} = {manri lo nu su'o da zo'u da me lo cevni} = "the
>> event that there is x that satisfies (x is god) is observed/measured/
>> determined."
>> {da poi cevni cu zasti} = {su'o da zo'u manri lo nu su'o de zo'u de me
>> da poi cevni} = "there is x that satisfies (the event that there is y
>> that satisfies (y is x that is god) is observed/measured/determined.)"
>>
>> Among them, only {da cevni} says "there is god."
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.