[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: possible worlds



At 01:23 PM 6/23/2001, Adam Raizen wrote:
la lojbab cusku di'e

> What is the relationship between the event and the sentence in the
English
> phrase "In the event of blah, i will do blecch".  There is clearly
some
> relationship between the event and the rest of the sentence, but it
is
> vague what that relationship is other than the event occurring is
necessary.
>
> Thus fau associates an event with a bridi and says that its
occurrence is
> in some way important to the truth of that bridi.  Works rather like
the
> English.

At least with the English, the idiom *does* mean at least that if the
event occurs, the main sentence also occurs.

This is ambiguous, but it is commonly a statement of intention, not of fact.

We do not have a clear modal logic model in Lojban for the meanings of such statements and the evaluaton of their truth. Modal logics study statements about possibility and necessity, probability, intention, permission, belief, and the like. I can dig out an old textbook and post some notes, if anybody thinks it will help.

We also don't have any useful logical model of *impossible* worlds and other weird ontologies. I don't know whether anyone has successfully constructed one, but I could look. Quine wrote about these problems, such as the "square circle" and "Plato's beard" but certainly didn't resolve them.