* Sunday, 2011-10-30 at 19:00 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > That does raise (again) the possibly important question of where it is
> > that a bunch of lions cinfos.
> >
> > Obvious answers:
> > (i) everywhere at least one of them zvatis;
> > (ii) at some specificish locale, such as their centre of mass;
> > (iii) everywhere.
> >
> > (ii) is icky.
>
> It could also be the minimum volume that contains them all,
Isn't that the same as (i)?
> unless you require the answer to "where" to be in point form.
Given {bu'u}, it seems that we're forced in theory to have the answer be
some subset of space. Of course I wouldn't expect us to define the set
thoroughly.
> > Under (iii), {lo vi cinfo} wouldn't work.
> >
> > So I guess you're working with (i)?
>
> Where would you say you remna? Is there a single right answer?
Unless we're working with (iii), my answer would be: where I am. If you
asked me {xu do bu'u ti remna}, I'd probably say {go'i} if you were
pointing at my spleen, but {na go'i} if you were pointing at one of my
hairs, but would leave it to philosophers to debate whether I'm right or
not.
Anyway, whatever the precise answer, if we work with anything like (i)
or (iii) it seems that actually {lo vi cinfo} only works if the
tautology is
{ro lo vi cinfo cu vi cinfo}
and not just
{lo vi cinfo cu vi cinfo} ,
because the second holds even if all but one of the lions is off
in africa (or, assuming possible worlds are handled analogously, are
space-lions from Quuxkl).
(this is relevant to JC's bunch-kinds idea, by the way, so isn't as much
of a tangent as it may appear!)
Martin
Attachment:
pgpVxWlmKouC3.pgp
Description: PGP signature