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

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

MK> 

<<Yes, though the bounds of this set may vary
from
> individual to
> individual. This is rarely a practical problem,
> especially if one
> assumes that the speaker's bounds (assuming
that
> the bounds are
> somewhat sensible) at the time they said it are
> the bounds that should
> be considered.>>
>
> This emendation is problematic for me since it
> seems to say both that there is a single unique
> set of everything that has a certain property
and
> also that this set may be different for
different
> people.  How can this be? If the set is unique
it
> is not relative to a person and
contrapositively.

I don't like it either, but that seems to be the
way it is. I don't
believe that there's really a perfect/universal
hypothetical set of
bears. The definition of "adjacent", for example,
doesn't imply any
exact measurements, though it could: something
like "if the distance
between the objects in question is 10% or smaller
than the average of
both the object's average radii, then they are
adjacent". If it had a
definition like that (or better), then there
would seem to be a
universal definition of "adjacent". Can you
imagine what a definition
like that - a seemingly universal definition -
would look like for
"bear"? I can't. I don't want to. I'd rather put
up with my bounds for
"bear" not matching your bounds. The odds that
we'll encounter a
situation where we find ourselves disagreeing are
tiny, and the odds
of us not hastily resolving it are smaller
still.>>

I think that this admission is a tactical
mistake.  If the set of all bears (actual,
possible, past, present and future, etc.) varies
from person to person, then you have essentially
conceded xorxes' point.  First, if every person
has such a set, then there is a maximal set which
embraces all of these (their union -- available
even for L-sets).  Since, ex hypothesi, no one
actually has this as his set, then no one really
means ALL bears when he say {lo ro cribe}, only
"all the things I think of as bears."  Further,
once you allow that what counts as a bear varies
from person to person, you have to allow that for
each person it varies with time (as it clearly
does as the person grows in knowledge, but not
obviously only that).  And once you do that, the
step to "it varies with the person's interests at
the time" is hardly a step at all.  And then we
are at xorxes' place "all bears" is everything I
count as a bear at the moment.


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.