Re: [lojban] Revising mu'ei and CAhA once again. Possible worlds.

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:46 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> mu'ei seems a fairly pointless notion for modalities, since the count of
> possible worlds is rarely (if ever) a factor.

You don't need a count for the modals, just the basic quantifiers:

su'o mu'ei = ka'e = na bi'ai na
no mu'ei = na ka'e = bi'ai na
ro mu'ei = bi'ai = na ka'e na
me'i mu'ei = na bi'ai = ka'e na

"mu'ei" may be pointless here in the sense that we already have
"ka'e", which is simpler. If we had had "bi'ai" from the start,
"mu'ei" would have been even less necessary. But it's still nice to
have the relationship between them clearly spelled out.

> It won't help a lot for
> probability, either, since it is relative sizes, not absolute one that play
> there (and the apparatus of logic, per se, is not up to messing with that.

But that's what the so'V series is for, relative quantifiers, just
what's needed for (vague, impressionistic) probabilities. When you say
that something is true in most possible worlds (of the relevant set),
you are saying that it is probable, so you can go from "so'u mu'ei"
(possible but highly ulikely) to "so'a mu'ei" (almost but not quite
certain). You don't really need a fully specified metric for these
words to be useful.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.