Le vendredi 14 février 2014 20:59:56 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit :
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> {lo sidbo} does not refer to one or more individuals, because, for every
> {lo sidbo xi my}, there is another {lo sidbo xi ny} such that {lo sidbo
> xi ny cu me lo sidbo xi my i naku lo sidbo xi my cu me lo sidbo xi ny},
> therefore {lo sidbo xi my} does not satisfy the condition for being an
> individual {RO DA poi ke'a me lo sidbo xi my zo'u lo sidbo xi my cu me
> DA}. It means that there is no individual {lo sidbo} in this universe of
> discourse. Therefore {lo sidbo} is neither an individual nor individuals.
To me it looks more like this entire process of sub-grouping is a
strawman. I don't see why I should be forced to sub-divide {lo sidbo}
into infinitely large {lo sidbo be ny} when I could just as well just
look at each individual {sidbo} in isolation.
It is because the following proposition is given as an axiom in the universe of discourse (UD1) on the current topic.
P1:
ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo ku'o su'oi de zo'u de me da ijenai da me de
In this universe of discourse, the following proposition is a theorem.
P2:
naku ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo zo'u lo sidbo cu me da
As long as talking about UD1, we are forced to think that P2, that is, there is no individual {lo sidbo}, because it is a proved theorem.
On the other hand, it is also possible that we talk about such a universe of discourse (UD2) that the following proposition is an axiom or a theorem.
P3:
ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo zo'u lo sidbo cu me da
In UD2, {lo sidbo} is an individual, and a negation of P1 is proved.
Because neither P1 nor P3 is tautology, we are not forced to think that one of them is always true for all the universes of discourse. We have freedom to choose non-logical axioms and a universe of discourse according to context.
[ s1 , s2 , s3 , ... ]
Why can't I just look at s1 by itself, and s2 by itself and so on? For
each s_x, it holds that:
ro'oi da poi ke'a me s_x zo'u: s_x me da
So each s_x is an individual.
That is UD2, not UD1.
> And maybe this helps: Do you see a difference between "referent" and
> "individual"? What do you consider the difference to be?
>
>
>
> Yes. The identity of referent is defined as follows:
> "X are the same thing as Y" =ca'e {X me Y ije Y me X}
>
> On the other hand, "an individual" is defined as follows:
> "X is an individual" =ca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me X zo'u X me DA}
Each s_x satisfies the definition of "individual". Any pair of {s_x,
s_y} fails the "sameness" condition. The two definitions don't exclude
each other.
The universe of discourse in which each s_x satisfies the definition of "individual" is UD2, not UD1.
Every sumti has certain referents, and it might have the same referents
as another sumti, in which case the two sumti are "the same", or they
might have different referents, in which case the two sumti are not the
same. In either case, the referents themselves are individuals.
In UD2, yes. In UD1, no. It depends on our choice of universe of discourse, on the context, not on the language.