Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 6/5/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- Maxim Katcharov
> <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/29/06, Jorge Llambías
> > > <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 5/29/06, Maxim Katcharov
> > > <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Avoiding the word "mass"/"crowd" when
> you
> > > say "the students" does not
> > > > > mean that "the students" does not refer
> to
> > > a group of students. It
> > > > > does.
> > > >
> > > > That's the singularist view, yes. But it
> is
> > > not the only possible view.
> > >
> > > Ok, then please show an alternate view.
> You've
> > > flatly asserted that
> > > one exists, yet when I ask you to explain
> it, a
> > > vague two-word answer
> > > ("the students") with no explanation or
> > > demonstrative examples is all
> > > I get.
> >
> > On a pluralist view, reference is a relation,
> not
> > a function, so that a single term may refer
> > simultaneously to several things.
> 
> Sure. In my singularist view, I too prefer to
> think of it as a
> relation. "run(dog, road)" seems silly to me.

I don't see what this is illustrating or,
perhaps, just what is says about the way
reference is treated: function or relation.

> The question that I pose
> is: what is the nature of the relation between,
> say, Alice (one of the
> students that surrounds the building) and the
> surrounding of the
> building? The relation is crystal clear between
> Alice and the wearing
> of a hat, but the building-surroundment
> relation seems to be
> vaporizing as xorxes tries to nail it down. I
> suspect that this is
> because the true nature of this pluralist
> relationship is that of a
> mass - the relationship is that Alice is part
> of a mass/group that
> surrounds the building, and that there simply
> is no other sensible
> interpretation.

Well, I suppose that Alice's relation surrounding
the building (when she is one of the students
surrounding the building)is "participation." I
suppose that giving it a name is not going to
satisfy you (quite rightly) but if I lay out the
formal specifications of the relation, you will
just say "Oh, that's just membership in the
group." Or if I try to specify it in extension,
spelling out how she particpates (standing NEbyN
of the building at the same time as others are
standing at the other points of the compass, say)
you will relate that to being a member of the
group as well.  To which I can only say
"Precisely" -- singularist and pluralist
languages are two different ways of stating the
same facts.  They are completely
intertranslatable in a one-one mechanical way. 
You want a pluralist claim that is not
interpretable as a singularist one and there just
ain't any.  This whole discussion is totally
vacuous.

   
> > A sentence
> > using this term will be true if those things
> are
> > in the extension of the predicate in the
> > appropriate way, either individually or
> together.
> >  From this basis, a complete semantics can be
> > (has been) developed, which produces the
> > classical system with the "among" relation
> added.
> 
> Elaborate? To me, "among" has implications of
> being "among a group such that".

And so it does -- when used by a singularist. 
When used by a pluralist, it doesn't.  But the
properties of "among" are the same for both.
 
> >  In a totally parallel way, we can develop a
> > semantics with things and masses and the
> usual
> > definitions of truth and get the same
> classical
> > system with "among" added.  What is said is
> the
> > same, the conditions for truth are totally
> > intertranslatable, and so on.
> >
> > > 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 a mass, or the students
> > > individually.

This is merely metaphysical hubris: it's my point
of view, so the other must be defective in some
way.  Unfortunately, any way that the pluralist
view is defective, the singularist is defective
in an exactly matching fashion (in this case
creating aentity that has no place in reality).
   
> > > >
> > > > > Show me how and what "the students"
> refers
> > > to.
> > > >
> > > > In the pluralist view, it does not refer
> to
> > > one thing. It refers to
> > > > many things,
> > > > i.e. the many students.
> > >
> > > Ok, then when I say "group of students", I
> too
> > > am "referring to many things".
> > >
> > > Avoiding the word "mass"/"crowd" when you
> say
> > > "the students" does not
> > > mean that "the students" does not refer to
> a
> > > group of students. It
> > > does.
> >
> > By you, yes.  By xorxes, no -- it is all
> about
> > the pictures in your head.
> >
> > > "[The [many students]]" refers to a group
> of
> > > students.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Additionally, I don't think that Lojban
> > > uses this mistaken concept of
> > > > > "plural predication": it seems that the
> > > book that describes it has not
> > > > > been published yet, and so Lojban
> predates
> > > it by about 20 years.
> > > >
> > > > That may be true. Is your argument then
> that
> > > conservatism requires
> > > > that we stick with the singularist view?
> (CLL
> > > does concede that pronouns
> > > > at least can refer to "individuals" or
> > > "masses" depending on context,
> > > > so even there one can find, at least in
> > > embryonic form, the pluralist view.)
> > >
> > > My argument here was that the burden of
> proof
> > > is on you to show that
> > > a) this pluralist view exists and is
> correct,
> >
> > Exists is easy; there is the book (and a
> number
> > of others going back to the late thirties). 
> Is
> > correct doesn't arise if the alternative is
> the
> > usual singularist view, since they are the
> same
> > thing.
> >
> > > and b) that Lojban uses
> > > this pluralist view. Until you do this, you
> > > should not attempt to use
> > > this pluralist view in Lojban.
> >
> > We can't tell, of course, which one Lojban
> uses
> > because we can't get inside Lojban's head.
> > Further, Lojban does not have devices for
> > expressing some crucial distinction in the
> > theory.
> 
> Which distinctions?

Primarily the difference between distributive and
collective predication.  Even {loi} does not
appear to be just collective predication -- it
seems clearly to involve corporate and Urgoo
cases as well.  And there are cases which cannot
be dealt with using gadri.
 
> > So the best thing to say is that Lojban
> > ut nunc does not adhere to either view but
> > sometimes does things that look like one,
> > sometime like the other.  The proposal,
> stripped
> > of its picture thinking, is just to make
> Lojban
> > adequate for the view(s) and so get rid of a
> > number of false starts and missteps that a
> > previous state of ignorance forced on us.
> 
> My position is that if there was a state of
> ignorance before, it's
> being solved now by inducing a confusion, and
> then not thinking too
> deeply so that one does not see the problems.

Well, that is polemics, not testable claims.  Or,
if testable, then false, since the theory is
there before you (the one that is not easily
documentable is the singularist one, actually).

 >
> > > >
> > > > > Then what surrounds the building?
> Please
> > > give an explanation,
> > > > > hopefully a detailed one, as opposed to
> a
> 
=== message truncated ===
<<>
>
> > Because it was written in a book, and because
> > you need it to be true
> > in order to support your position in this
> > argument of ours? Answer
> > this honestly.
>
> Because, from my point of view it offers the
best
> solution to a number of problems in Lojban. 
The
> solutions are equally available within the
> singularist position, but are less likely to be
> used because the long habit of singularists is
> set theory and that does not allow for
> distributive predication on sets.

I think I'm an example of the singularist
position, and really, I
don't want to have much to do with mathematical
sets. I like
"bunches". Which problems are solved by the
pluralist view?>>

Not exactly by the pluralist view (since it is
equally a singularist one) but by the broader
logic that the pluralists have called to our
attention (though it has been there for nearly 70
years, although largely in Polish or in Quine's
less mainstream polemics.  It provides a uniform
way of dealing with plurals, a clear sense of
what a "mass" is (or, at least, one important
facet of that -- so it also provides some clues
to what all is confused in that notion) and thus
a better picture of the underlying Logic that
Lojban is the language of.  Some of these
problems have been practical but many of them
were theoretical or aesthetic -- no less problems
for that.

<<>
> > >
> > > > and b) that Lojban uses this pluralist
> > view.
> > >
> > > Lojban belongs to its speakers. As long as
> > some speakers use it, Lojban
> > > can in a sense be said to use it, and some
> > speakers do use it, I can vouch
> > > for that. If most speakers decide they
won't
> > use it, it will perhaps be more
> > > correct to say that Lojban doesn't use it.
> > It's too early to tell at this point,
> > > but if I had to bet, I'd vote on yes.
> >
> > The argument is about the official version of
> > Lojban. This is why I
> > make the distinction between "my version" and
> > "the current/your
> > version". If we go this route, then everyone
is
> > right based on how
> > much support they supposedly have (even a
> > single supporter seems to be
> > enough), and not how reasonable or sensible
> > their interpretations are.
>
> Well, everyone is right and also wrong.  Lojban
> doesn't use either view -- and can't as now
> constituted.  But either one could be added and
> would automatically add the other as correct.
>
> > >
> > > > Until you do this, you should not attempt
> > to use
> > > > this pluralist view in Lojban.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the advice.
> > >
> >
> > I chose to bring the subject of my inner
{ro},
> > and my {le} & {lo} up
> > on the mailing list before I dived in and
> > started using them. I don't
> > think that it's unreasonable to ask you to do
> > the same regarding your
> > plural quantification, especially if I ask
you
> > to avoid using it
> > within this discussion of ours.>>

Sorry you missed the discussion of plural
quantification and reference that went on a while
back before xorxes started using them explicitly
(actually, it is still hard to tell what is being
used, since so little changes in Lojban as a
result.  We haven't tackled the hard stuff yet.)

<<>
> But you came in claiming that only your usage
was
> correct and have never supported even that it
was
> correct (it certainly is not how Lojban now
works
> and it seems to be based on an error about
that)
> let alone that only it is correct.  At worst,
> xorxes seems to have matched you point for
point.

What usage?>>

That {le ro broda} meant reference to all the
brodas ever and everywhen-where, and so generally
for internal {ro}.  At least that seems to have
been the main point, lathough, buried now in a
couple hundred messages, I may have missed
something.

<<The singularist view is much more established
than the pluralist view.>>

Stronger than that.  The established view is
singularist and has a logic different from the
one proposed.  It is also a logic that makes
Lojban's treatment of plurals awkward and often
inadequate.  Indeed, tthe "logical language" has
to violate the accepted logic in a number of
fairly basic cases.

<<In fact, I allow and agree with plural
predication: {ci lo ci cribe}
is a plural predicate.>>

Well, it is not a predicate at all, so I don't
get the point here.  Is it that we allow plural
terms to be predicated of?  Yes. we do and that
is a violation of standard logic, but not of
"pluralist" logic.  So, if you admit this case,
you are on the way to seeing the need for the
change.

<<It's just that I disagree with certain usages
of plural predicates.>>

Again, predicates aren't singular or plural.  Do
you mean that you don't like the fact that the
satisfiers of a predicate need not be things
taken one by one but may be several things taken
simultaneously?

<<The last two points that xorxes has given I've
refuted as inadequate.

>
> > > > What surrounds the building?
> > > > (The students.)
> > > > Does each student surround the building?
> > > > (No.)
> > > > Then what is it that surrounds the
> > building?
> > > > (The students.)
> > > > So you mean the students together?
> > > > (No, the students.)
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > The last one should be: "Yes, the students
do
> > it together."
> > >
> >
> > Your definition of "together" seems very
> > strange. No definition described at
> >
> > http://www.answers.com/together?ff=1
> >
> > seems to cover it, rather, they indicate that
> > "together" is used to
> > describe masses of things, or reciprocal
> > relationships.

But reading those definitions as a pluralist,
they  say exactly what the pluralist means when
he says "the students together."  No masses are
mentioned, nor sets nor corporations nor ,,,,,
just the tings themselves.

<<> Then I fear that answers.com has missed
> something.  This seems a perfectly natural
> locution.

Yes, well, it seems that most English
dictionaries have missed
something. Either that, or you've introduced
something that isn't
there. My point was that xorxes should perhaps
try to explain what he
means by "together", because he clearly isn't
using it in any sense
that I (and the ever-authoritative dictionaries)
understand the word
to mean.>>

As noted, to a pluralist he is using it in
exactly the sense there presented.  Once you
become a true believer in a metaphysical
position, everything conforms to -- and confirms
-- your view.
<<>
> > > > I'm not being dense when I ask you these:
I
> > understand your position
> > > > perfectly. You think that saying "the
> > students" frees you from
> > > > implying that they're a group. I
recognize
> > this, and I assert that
> > > > it's incorrect. Avoiding the word
> > "mass"/"crowd" when you say "the
> > > > students" does not mean that "the
students"
> > does not refer to a group
> > > > of students..
> > >
> > > Because you assert it?
> > >
> >
> > Because you offer no evidence to the
contrary.
> > I ask you what "the
> > students" refers to, if not the students
each,
> > nor the mass of them.
> > You offer no explanation. Here, I'll offer
some
> > rough explanations:
> >
> > "The 50 students (individually)" refers to
each
> > entity, that is, we
> > have a set of 50 entities that are students
in
> > mind.
> Well, insisting that it is a set from the
get-go
> prejudices the issue.  If I were to have a
> problem with where you are going, I would start
> right here: we have no set in mind, just 50
> students.

Set as in bunch.>>

And bunch as in some one thing that does duty for
the many, not bunch as a colloquial way to talk
about several things at once. Its the "some one
thing" that is the problem, regardless of what
you call it.

<<>
> > If we say that
> > "the students run", we mean that it is true
> > that each student of this
> > set of 50 runs. If any of the students do not
> > run, the statement is
> > false.
>
> Well, this is a fine point, but not worth
arguing
> here. I'll assume you mean it in its most
> particular sense.
>
>
> > "Together the students" refers to the
students
> > as a collective entity.>>

Not so, says the pluralist, it just refers to the
students and refers to them collectively. I know
that sounds just mumbo-jumbo to you, but it makes
perfectly good sense to a pluralist.  The Real
Presence makes good sense to RCs and is
mumbo-jumbo to Prezbies, and neither can prove
the other wrong.

<<> It does not obviously look that way; what is
you
> evidence for this claim?  "The group of
students"
> is a more clear cut case of a collective entity
> -- and even it is open to question.

My evidence is the way in which every dictionary
I've seen interprets
"together". My proof is the insensibility and
inability to explain or
elaborate on any other perspective.>>

Well, as noted, the dictionary "clearly" gives
the  pluralist meaning, which is the only
sensible position as we have explained and
elaborated ad nauseam.  'Tis -'Tain't. Draw.
<<>
> > Sometimes, this collective entity can be seen
> > as a "crowd" or a "mob".
> > When people look at groups of people, they
> > never have trouble
> > recognizing that this amalgamation is an
entity
> > on its own - that is,
> > they see a forest, and not 10000 trees, they
> > see a book, and not 500
> > pages. "The forest is burning", and not "3542
> > trees are burning".
>
> Sure, if you talk about forests then you talk
> about forests, but there is no problem in
taking
> the small picture and commenting that so far
3542
> trees have burnt.

Sure. Now how does the pluralist view, the
"bunch-together" view, fit into 
this?>>

Just that in order for a forest to burn, some
percentage (typically "enough") of the teee have
to burn and if they do, the forst burns.  There
is nothing else there than the tree, no forest
over and above and separate from the tree.  LIke
"the average man, "forest" is just a shorthand
way for talking about a lot of trees (and
problably other things as well -- undergrowth,
some critters ...)

<<>
> > So
> > when we say "together the students surround
the
> > building", we mean
> > this thing that is a mass of students
surrounds
> > the building.
> >
> > Can you offer something similar? It can be as
> > crude as you'd like to
> > start, I just want /something/.
>
> Unfortunately, the response is to cite the same
> expression and note that it does not have to
mean
> another object over and above the students.
>

I think you've confused two things. There is
nothing "over and above"
the students, and I never said that there had to
be. There is,
however, something that is composed of the
students.>>

Now you are really confusing me.  There is
something composed of the students but not over
and above the students.  It clearly is not a
student and it is by your say-so not the
students.  So how is it not a new entity.  This
talk is, fo course, typical of mereological sums
(L-sets, ...) and if that is really what you mean
then you are already in the position (as I have
assumed you are anyhow) of accepting the logic
involved here, since it is jot and tittle the
same as the pluralist logic.  People just talk in
odd ways about it (and I think both ways are
odd).  Of course, what you say is literally
contradictory, so I am giving it the best light I
can.  If you mean something else, then we are in trouble.