[lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma}

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

--- John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On 12/15/05, John E Clifford
> > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, that would be nice.  I assume that he
> > > objects to the reification that seems to be
> > > involved in the use of a term like "bunch."
> 
> > But
> > > the *entity* is inessential so long as
> > whatever
> > > we are talking about has a relation like
> "in"
> > > ("among" in McKay) with all the relevant
> > > properties.
> > 
> > I think McKay would argue that bunches are
> yet
> > another form
> > of "singularism". In his second chapter,
> > "Against singularism",
> > he clearly states that plural language does
> not
> > presuppose the
> > truth of the basic mereological principle:
> > "whenever some things
> > exist, their fusion exists". Bunches, as you
> > have defined them,
> > do presuppose this basic principle.
> 
> This seems to me to be an odd position for
> McKay
> to take, wrapped up probably in another bit of
> anti-entity-ism.  It seems clear to me that if
> there are two things in a domain then they both
> may be among the values assigned to a variable
> or
> the referents of some denoting expression.  And
> that is all that the bunches theses claim; it
> is
> not required that they are among the referents
> of
> some expression.  Plural quantification lacks
> any
> way of talking about plurals and so cannot even
> formulate the claim involved here.  That bunch
> language can does not obviate its being a
> theory
> of which plural quantification/reference is a
> realization. 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
> lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to
> http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to
> secretary@lojban.org for help.
> 
> 

Looking over that chapter again, I note that
McKay is doing a very different thing there.  He
is arguing that plural quantification/reference
cannot be reduced to any singularist version and
that it does not require a singularist
underpinning of any sort.  All of which I agree
with; I am only saying that there are singularist
systems that are formally indistinguishable from
plural reference/quantification.  After all,
bunch theory does not *say* there is a bunch that
so and so, it just says that something is so and
so, leaving it open what that something is/are:
aF & bF & cF => [Ed]d-F regardless. Put another
way, McKay uses "plurality" and "plurals" in ways
that are to the naked eye not different from the
way a singularist uses "set" or "fusion" and this
is even more true in the formalism.


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.