[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
Le lundi 10 février 2014 00:55:01 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit : Would you
say that {lo sakta cu me lo najnimryjisra}? For me it would be a very
definite No.
No, but the current topic is not similar to that but to {lo re prenu
cu me lo mu prenu}.
Okay, then we still don't understand each other. I (mis-)understood your
{linji} example in a way that is very much like {lo sakta cu me lo
najnimryjisra} and you said my graphical representation described your
views correctly. But judging by your further claims, I now think that
that cannot be the case. So you must have meant something else.
{lo linji} in that universe of discourse are not individuals but an
infinite number of non-individuals, because every {lo linji xi my}
has always another {lo linji xi ny} such that {lo linji xi ny cu me
lo linji xi my i ku'i naku lo linji xi my cu me lo linji xi ny}, and
this proposition contradicts the condition for individual {RO DA poi
ke'a me lo linji xi my zo'u lo linji xi my cu me DA}. Therefore,
every {lo linji} is neither an individual nor individuals.
Let's try again. Let's use something that can just as easily be imagined
to be infinite: {lo sidbo}. There are infinitely many possible ideas and
thoughts. Let's say that {lo sidbo} contains *all* of them and therefore
has infinitely many referents.
I will enumerate all the referents of {lo sidbo} as s1, s2, s3...
1) [ s1 , s2 , s3, s4 , ... ]
continuing indefinitely.
This first infinitely huge {lo sidbo} can be (randomly) split apart like
this:
2) [ [ s1 , s312 , s15 , ... ] , [ s3 , s9232 , ... ] , [ ... ] ]
Where each sub-bracket again contains infinitely many things that
{sidbo} and each sub-bracket is among {lo sidbo} from step 1.
We can repeat this process infinitely often for each new sub-grouping,
making more and more sub-groupings which will get smaller and smaller
with each step, but will always remain infinite. (Each grouping will
also represent a possible value for a plural variable)
Do you agree up to this point?
If so, why do you think that this entails that {lo sidbo} does not refer
to one or more individuals?
In reality, the []-brackets don't actually do anything other than select
multiple values at once. They don't create new individuals, which would
happen with sets or "masses".
This is as far as I can get trying to understand your argument. Why any
of this should indicate that we can sometimes deal with things other
than individuals is still completely unclear to me.
For me the situation is very simple: Each of the s_x above is an
individual and {lo sidbo} refers to all of them.
Individuals are not a special case to me, they are the only case.
And maybe this helps: Do you see a difference between "referent" and
"individual"? What do you consider the difference to be?
mi'e la selpa'i mu'o
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.