Re: lo gunma nabmi

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la stivn cusku di'e

> Hold on a second. What exactly is an "everyday object" and why should
> inclusion in the set of everyday objects be a criteria for whether
> something is described discretely or continuously?

By "everyday object" I meant a basic concept that is needed for everyday
conversation. There is no hope of having a complete technical vocabulary
with 1500 or so words.

> Remember exactly what /ta rismi/ is. A rice grain is the seed of a member
> of the class angiospermae, subclass monocotyledoneae.

I didn't know that. To me it is a little, elongated, light coloured
thing that you can cook and eat. I also know that it comes from a
plant. I really don't know the Linnean names of anything, although
I may recognize some thanks to their latinness, but I don't believe
you need to know them to understand Lojban.

> Part of this seed
> contains the embryo which is the result of the combination of a small
> number of DNA /selci/ Is /selci/ a quantity or an instance?

You seem to be saying that quantities of things are not instances.
I don't see a dichotomy there.

> *molecule, x1 is a cell/atom/unit/| of x2; x1 is an indivisible, most basic
> subunit of x2 /:/ (x2 generally has mass nature) /=/ selci (sle)
>
> Sounds discrete to me. Note the conceptual basis of /selci/ - "indivisible,
> most basic subunit" The recipe for making a rice grain is contained in a
> discrete DNA molecule, and discrete entities are *instances* not
> *quantities*

I'm afraid you lost me. Are you saying that {rismi selci} should be a
DNA molecule? I may agree with that. I don't think we are in much
disagreement as to the meaning of {selci}.

> >The essential properties of water we experience every day are lost long
> >before you break water into molecules.
>
> This seems to me like a very odd way of thinking. The essential properties
> of water are in fact due to its molecular structure. The hydrogens are
> rapidly oscillating back and forth, on average maintaining less than a 180
> degree angle to eachother.

Ah, but why do they behave like that? Obviously, that can be explained
by their internal structure. Why do you stop your examination at the
molecular level? You seem to think that the logical way of thinking
about water is to concentrate on what happens on the scale of a few
Angstroms, but that is only one very peculiar way of looking at it.
Most people look at it on the scale of millimeters to maybe hundreds
of meters as the most relevant one.

> Take an ice cube, put in in your frying pan. It will first melt, then turn
> into steam. What is steam? Individual water molecules freely bouncing
> about! Surely these are everyday events. I asked a 10 year old child today,
> "What is the chemical formula for water?" "H2O" he said. "And what is H2O?"
> I said. "Two hydrogens and one oxygen," he said.

You should have asked "what is water?" But I'm not saying that talking
about molecules and chemical composition should be forbidden. I'm just
saying that it is not how we normally picture the world.

> If the molecular structure of water accounts for some "everyday" events,
> and is understood by 10 year old children, why are you claiming that
> molecules are esoteric?

Because I can't see or touch them. Ten year old children understand
many more concepts than the basic ones we can cover with 1500 gismu.

> The bulk properties of water derive from its molecular properties, and can
> actually be calculated with a fast computer.

The molecular properties derive from the molecular structure, and that
can also be calculated. Is that reason enough to say that "water" really
is just a mass of protons, neutrons and electrons?

> Perhaps you are suggesting an
> analogy to army : soldier | /jenmi/ : /sonci/, in which the behavior of the
> whole is more than the sum of its parts. But that's not the case for
> /djacu/. The bulk properties of /lei djacu/ are derivative properties of
> the individual properties /le djacu/ and can be predicted using simple
> prediction rules (equations) and lots of computation.

The properties of the molecule can be predicted from those of the atoms
by using simple equations and lots of computation too, so I don't se why
we should give so much importance to the molecular level in our everyday
language.

> >Nobody says {djacu} is infinitesimally divisible.
>
> I disagree. This is exactly what defining /djacu/ as continuous rather than
> discrete means. Consider the though experiment:
>
> Take a quantity of water.
> Discard half of the water.
> You are left with a (quantity) of something.
> Is it still water?

Probably yes. You need to use fuzzy logic here, since it won't hold
if you keep repeating the procedure for very long. If you remove a
grain of sand from a pile of sand, are you still left with a pile
of sand? Yes, but not if you keep doing it for long.

> If it is still water, then you ought to be able to do this over and over if
> /djacu/ is continuous. But you can't because /djacu/ is discrete -
> eventually you get down to one molecule of water which can not be split in
> half and leave water. Water is not infinitesimally divisible. It is
> discrete.

I'm not denying that, of course. Long before you get to one molecule
I would stop calling the stuff just unqualified "water". The same thing
happens if you do it to a {blanu}.

> Color is clearly not always a derivative property
> of individual molecules. Color depends on diffraction patterns as well as
> what frequencies of light it absorbs. Thus structure and arrangement are
> important too. Color is not a derivative property of individual molecules,
> but is a bulk property resulting from the arrangement of these molecules in
> space. Colors are different types of predicates than molecules.

But in order to drink water you also need a certain arrangement of the
molecules. You couldn't drink it if the same number of molecules were
arranged one after the other in a long line. That's why the water you
drink and the water in an ice cube are conceptually different. They have
the same type of components, but the arrangement of molecules is different.
Why do you accept {blanu} as an emergent property but not {djacu}?

> 1.a. A specified or indefinite number or amount.
>
> Using definition 1a from the AHD, either of the following is correct:
>
> x1 is made of/contains/is a specified or indefinite number of |  (discrete)
> or
> x1 is made of/contains/is a specified or indefinite amount of |  (continuous)
>
> The lojban dictionary does NOT support your assertion that /loi djacu/ is
> preferred to /lei djacu/

Did I ever assert that? Both of those are mass references, and I don't
have anything against them. What I probably said is that {lo djacu}
and {le djacu} are not (in most contexts) references to individual
molecules.

> Both seem plausible to me. I prefer the latter of
> course, as this is how I think of the world. Apparently my way of looking
> at the world seems as odd to you as your way of looking at the world seems
> to me. We probably wouldn't have noticed this if we hadn't had this
> discussion.

i a'o mi'o bazi casnu la'e de'u bau la lojban tezu'e le nu cipra le nu
mi'o jimpe simxu

co'o mi'e xorxes