Re: [lojban] RE:su'u

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

la djan cusku di'e

> I think you conceive of *possible* worlds too broadly; not every
> conceivable world is a possible world.

Either every conceivable world is possible or only the real
world is possible. I think those are the least arbitrary
definitions of "possible". But even if you take some other
intermediate position on "possible", are you saying that
essential properties are conserved only in possible worlds,
not in every world?

> For example, there is no
> possible world in which (Kripke's example) Queen Elizabeth has
> always been a swan.  We can *say* "If the Queen of England were
> a swan, she would have feathers", but we cannot *reason* about this
> world usefully.

Why not? Isn't the very sentence you wrote a kind of reasoning?
"If the Queen of England were a swan, she would have feathers.
The Queen of England does not have feathers. Therefore, the
Queen of England is not a swan." This seems like a useful
kind of reasoning, and you need a world where the Queen is
a swan in order for it to make sense.

co'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.