Re: dying gasp of latest masses thread

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

And:
> > > Similarly, the Pacific Ocean
> > > laps upon the shores of Sydney harbour, but it is not the case that
> > > all of the Pacific Ocean laps thereon.
> > This presents no problem, since "the Pacific Ocean" is an individual.
> I think I mustn't know how to tell a mass from an individual.

In my opinion, it is not the referent that is a mass or an individual.
A given referent can be both. There are many ways to refer to a given
object. One is by name, as in "the Pacific Ocean". Another way is
by description. The mass/individual are different types of description.
The individual description is much like a name in this regard, you
could say "the ocean" to refer to the same object, and there is nothing
massy about it because we have not even mentioned components, as
far as this description is concerned, there may be no components
to it at all. You could also refer to the very same object as
{lei djacu}, "the waters" or something. Now you are saying that the
object has components, and that the components are djacu. But this
does not mean that our claims about the object will change in any
way, nor that they will have to apply to the components. All that
{lei} gives us is another way to refer to the same object, starting
from the components instead of just from the object itself. Objects
are not masses or individuals. It is the referential description that
is a mass or individual reference.

> > It is all of it that laps thereon as far as fractionators are
> > concerned
> Surely not. It is not the case that the whole of the Pacific is in
> (or laps upon) Sydney harbour.

Depends on the definition of "is" or "laps upon". "Is" is much too
ambiguous, it could mean anything. What does "laps upon" mean?
If it means "x1 has a physical part that rests upon a part of x2"
then yes, the whole Pacific Ocean laps upon the whole of Sydney
harbour. Of course, in English, using "the whole" changes our
definition of "laps upon", because phrased like that it doesn't
seem to mean "the whole of the P.O. has a physical part that
rests upon a part of the whole of S.H.". But this is a problem
with the definition of "laps upon" that changes with the quantification
of its arguments. In English. It is not a problem of the referent of
"the Pacific Ocean" and "the whole of the Pacific Ocean" being
different beasts. They refer to the same thing, but they modify
somewhat the predicate. I don't think we want anything like that
in Lojban.

> > For something to be inside a room, it is usually required that
> > all its physical parts, or most of them, be there. For something
> > to be seen, it is not required that all its physical parts be
> > seen. Those are part of the definition of "be inside" and "see",
> > irrespective of whether the arguments are individuals or masses
> > of individuals.
> I basically agree. There are lots of predicates that don't care
> whether their sumti is the whole of something or a portion of
> something.

Why should any predicate care? All the predicate needs is a referent
to serve as one of its arguments. How this referent comes about
(whether it is a part of something, an aglomeration of other things,
or whatever) is a separate issue. From the point of view of the
predicate, there is no difference in giving it "one argument"
or "one whole argument". Each of its arguments is equally whole.
It is one thing, independently of how we got at it and whether
it is formed by components or not, or whether it is a slice of
something else.

> This is why I don't want to force fractionators on
> {lei}. I now accept that {pisuo loi} is okay as a default.

Well, as far as I understand {piro lei} is not any different from
what you mean by {<nothing> lei}. It just says that it is the
mass of whatever, and not just some submass of it.

Jorge