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

["Maxim Katcharov" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 6/3/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> so here is where I have gotten to so far.  Since
> it seems to strike an important point, I jump in
> here.
>
> --- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 5/29/06, Jorge Llambías
> > <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 5/28/06, Maxim Katcharov
> > <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What are you talking about when you say "the
> > students"? You don't mean:
> >
> > 1) each student individually
> > 2) that quantity of students together
> >
> > so what is it that you mean? Show me how and
> > what "the students"
> > refers to. If it does not refer to (1), then
> > your argument falls prey
> > to my white dog example. I can expound on this
> > concept of a mass, with
> > examples etc. Same goes for the concept of
> > "each student". 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 (1) or (2).
>
> This position assumes that reference is a
> functionfrom one referring espression to one
> object.  There is no necessity to this
> restriction.  Logic just as well if reference is
> merely a relation, between one referring
> expression and several objects.  Nothing

For the sake of being understood, let's outline some terms:

Mass:  "the mass of X", "together the X", or {loi X}, etc. That is,
one entity composed of [...].

Set:  the mathematical sort of set, which is itself a real entity
(rather useless to our discussion, I think).

Bunch:  what I'd defined a set as, and what xorxes refers to as "20
students" etc. However, "20 students" could also have the mass or set
interpretation. When we call them a "bunch", we simply mean that there
is more than one student. We have no commitment to an actual "bunch"
entity. It's as if it were a marker that it's not a mass or a set.

Is that reasonable?

Now, the position of plural predication is that it can treat bunches
of "20 students" either individually, or "together" (but not in the
sense of "as a mass"). So the *bunch* of 20 students can both wear
hats *and* surround the building. (Additionally, xorxes suggests
various other groupings.) I understand this, and I see how it can
work, but I also see it as flawed.

What /is/ the relationship between the referring expression and the objects?

First there's the relationship between the students and the hats. We
aren't explicit, but it's the 'individual' sort of relationship, where
one-for-one each student wears a hat. This is as it would be in normal
logic.

Then, there's the relationship between the students and the building.
Now, we assert that *the students* surround the building, and not the
mass of them. However, each student is not a "true" surrounder
himself. So what is the relationship between the expression and the
objects? I'm not talking about the relationship between the bunch and
the surroundment of the building - that's quite straightforward. I
want to know the relationship between *Alice* and the surroundment of
the building.

I can't see one. The relationship that I see is "Alice, but only when
seen from the perspective of being in the company of Bryce..Zoe, is a
surrounder of the building", or something like that, though xorxes has
said that this is not what the relationship is.

Mass: Alice is part of the composite entity that surrounds the building
Set: Alice is part of the set... which doesn't surround the building,
because these sort of sets don't do anything useful (from our
perspective) except have sizes etc.
Bunch, individually: We are not treating Alice this way, so this does
not apply. (It would be the case if she was wearing a hat.)
Bunch, together (but not in the sense of mass or group): Alice's
relationship to the surroundment of the building is ???

I can't think of the relationship, and none has been suggested. I
strongly suspect that "bunch, 'together'" is actually a mass that is
trying to sneak itself in under the guise of "but I don't /think/ of
the concept of mass (which is true), and so it must be that there
isn't one".


So, what is the relationship between Alice and the building? Or the
surroundment of the building? (Alice being one of the 26 students that
surround it.)


> significant changes logically -- all the old
> rules apply, the theorems are unchanged and so
> on.  Personally, I find it hard to think this way
> for long stretches, but that is just old,
> well-engrained, habits.  I bridge the gap by
> thinking in terms of bunches.  but is just my
> thinking; it says nothing about what there really
> is.  And the locutions of the logic langauge are
> the same whichever way I think. The goal here is
> to bring Lojban -- the logical language in just
> this sense -- into line with the logic language.
> It turns out this takes very little; at most
> adding devices for indication mode of
> predication, which, as noted, were needed anyhow,
> at least occasionally.

> > > > It's a type of thing
> > > > that can be clearly recognized - we even
> > have names for it: crowd,
> > > > mob, swarm.
>
> We have all sorts of expressions that look like
> they refer to things.  In many cases, we know
> that they do not, but we use them anyhow.  It is
> not clear that these are not more cases of the
> same sort.

What is an example of a relevant case where they do not?

> > Then what surrounds the building? Please give
> > an explanation,
> > hopefully a detailed one, as opposed to a vague
> > 2-word answer.
>
> There is nothing vague about "the students."
> What could be more precise and still true (given
> a nominalist metaphysics, say -- but that is not
> even necessary).

"The students" could be used as mass, a bunch (individually), and a
bunch (together/plurally). I wouldn't (shouldn't) call that "vague"
either - I'd call it ambiguous.
.
> > That sounds very nice, but no, it's quite
> > different. 1 through 5 are
> > all questions regarding the relationship -
> > where did the act occur, by
> > what means did it occur, etc. 6 is a question
> > regarding the sumti -
> > are we treating these men as a mass/plural, or
> > individually? So let's
> > rephrase:
>
> This is one interpretation of the distinction,
> but not the only one and not one that the logic
> forces on us.  It is just a picture in your head,
> not a reality in the world. Though the whole
> event may be a reality, your interpretion of it
> is only yours.

While you recognize that I am assuming one interpretation when arguing
against this point, you miss that xorxes is also assuming an
interpretation, the contrary one, as he suggests the point. The
purpose here is not to argue for our interpretations, but to argue for
the consequences of our interpretations. Really, my response to
xorxes' "but look, these are similar under my interpretation" is "but
they aren't similar under mine".

> <<There is no way to refer both to "mass composed
> of X" and
> "X" at the same time (there is no superclass).>>
>
> Of course, xorxes is not doing this, since he
> denies (quite legitmately) that he is referring
> to the mass composed of X at all.

The issue is: is he, despite denying it and even without having a
concept of "mass" in his mind, using a mass in the relationship?


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.