[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[lojban-beginners] Re: closed systems error




Am Samstag, 15.02.03 um 21:15 Uhr schrieb Jorge Llambias:


la ian cusku di'e

The Problem is: Systems can draw a distinction between the name for "that wich can be observed" and the name for "that wich can not be observed", and that's a valid luman zei nunzga.

Originally you talked about a distinction between "that which
is named" and "that which is not named". Now you are making
a distinction between the name for "that which can be observed"
and the name for "that which can not be observed", which however
can still be named.

To observe is to distinguish AND to name. You can't name something if you don't distinguisch it from something else. So observing and naming is equivalent.

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.

The systems can only deal with symbols. When we talk or think about things, we really only deal with symbols. So, when we allow for things in X2 and X3 of velbo'e we insert something that is not a valid operation of those systems. By allowing the observation of things we actually break the operational closure.

You seem to be mixing what the systems talk about with what
we say about the systems. I can say "The system doesn't
observe apples, it can only deal with the symbol 'apple'."
Then I am referring to apples, something which I claim that
the system can't do, but which I can do in the metatalk about
the system.

The metatalk is a luman zei nunzga. Your reference to apples is a luman zei nunzga. What you are referring to is an observation.

So the definition will have to go back to symbols for X2 and X3 (and also for X4 and X1, or otherwise the system will not be able to refer to itself or to its operations).

So you want the brivla "brode" to describe a relationship among
four words? Again you seem to be mixing what a system can refer
to and what we refer to in our talk about a system.

An observation can be an observation of another observation. It can call either the the marked space of that other observation or it's unmarked space or the observation itself. So I really need 3 places in brode so the observation of the observation can refer to le selbo'e, le terbo'e and le brode. I want this space structure to be as true to the concepts of Spencer Brown and Luhmann as possible.

X4 is not really needed. But since I want to use brode in a theory that talks abou systems a lot, it will be very convenient to be able to refer to velbo'e. And since a System can also be distinguished and named, it's not really a problem to give it it's own place structure.


I think with the recursive definition of x3 the problem of the "nu'o se sinxa" should be solved.

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. 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.

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.

should do. Then you can use {nu} to refer to the event in
which this is accomplished. x1 would normally be a person, but
it can refer to your "systems" in a specialized context.


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