RE: [lojban] Subjunctive?

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>


la and di'e mi spuda

> > Obviously I have to admit some worlds where I have a million
> > dollars, but I also have to exclude all worlds where most
> > people have a million dollars. In other words, I have to
> > admit only those worlds where my having a million dollars
> > means I am rich. But then there is no content in the
> > expression, all the content is in the selection of relevant
> > worlds. Isn't it?
>
>You are right, though your point is exaggerated by the example, which
>means "Anyone with a million dollars is rich" [in nonlogical form].

I think I agree. There is no difficulty in putting
"anyone with a million dollars is rich" into logical form.
Just the same as "if someone has a million dollars then
they're rich". No need for possible worlds there:
ro da zo'u ganai da ponse lo rupnu megdo gi da ricfu
For all x, if x has a million dollars, then x is rich.

If that's all "if I had a million dollars then I'd be rich"
means, then there is no problem. The problem appears
if we insist in using the word "mi" in the translation.

>Change
>it to "If I have/had a million dollars then I would/might buy a yacht"
>and your argument is less glaringly obvious, though still valid.

The restrictions to worlds where most people don't have
a million dollars was so as to avoid worlds where the inflation
in the US had been something like in Argentina, so that
everyone would have a million dollars, and it would not be
enough either to make you rich or buy you a yacht.

>Without
>thinking about it deeply, I think that it is correct that the content
>should be in the selection of relevant worlds.

But then we need a much more accurate way of identifying
those worlds. For someone who doesn't know that if you
have a million dollars then you are rich, telling them
that in all relevant possible worlds, if they have a million
dollars then they are rich does not tell them anything.
They would have to be told which worlds are relevant.

>If I insisted on avoiding r.q., would the following work?
>
>    For some possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one),
>    w, in w I am able to retire and I have a million dollars.
>
>In other words, "if p then would q" is "Aw: in w, q or not p", and
>"if p then might q" is "Ew, in w p and q".

There must be something wrong with that unless
"if I had a million dollars I might retire" has the
same logical content of "if I retired I might have
a million dollars".

I can't pinpoint exactly where the problem is, but it has
to do with the selection of relevant worlds. You are required
to understand the English phrase before you decide which
worlds are accepted and which are not, so the interesting
content of the translation into logical form is all
hidden there.

co'o mi'e xorxes

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

Looking for the lowest refinance rate for your mortgage?
GetSmart.com can help. We'll help you find the loan you 
need - quick, easy, and FREE click
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/GetSmartRefinance ">Click Here</a>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com