Re: [lojban] RBDS and GDS are false

["'Robin Lee Powell' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>]

I'm not sure I followed all of this, but it's worth noting that
people have been asserting "the gismu don't cover semantic space
evenly or completely" for uh at least twenty years.  Like, that's
not a point of contention.

On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 10:47:31AM -0700, Corbin Simpson wrote:
> coi
> 
> RBDS and GDS are two hypotheses about semantic space and (baseline) gismu. 
> They claim (1) that a universal covering of semantics exists as a space 
> independent of syntax, and (2) that the set of "main verbs" (RBDS) or 
> (baseline) gismu (GDS) generates a vector space which covers the semantic 
> space from (1).
> 
> Note first that we can do rank arithmetic here, suggesting that the 
> universal semantics is finite-dimensional as a vector space. This already 
> makes it highly suspicious, given that the category of models for a theory 
> is usually not so well-behaved.
> 
> Now, the short version: {xlane}, the fourth temporal tense, is not 
> baseline; yet, we have too much evidence for Special & General Relativity 
> to ignore it. Whoops!
> 
> The long version, unrelated: Lojban is not good at algebra or equations. 
> Mathematics is all about giving multiple names to individual objects, but 
> Lojban struggles to even show that {dugri} and {tenfa} are related, let 
> alone that they are equivalent selbri. This leads to a first big gap in 
> semantics where we cannot express algebraic theories or Lawvere theories; 
> we can add valsi for monoids, groups, rings, etc. but have no sense of how 
> they are individual instances of a more general construction.
> 
> We can't internalize categories or similarly universal big objects 
> directly. The problem is that we have no way to talk about inaccessible 
> cardinals, which means that Tarski's axiom would genuinely extend our 
> set-theoretic semantics beyond {cmima}. This is a pretty common phenomenon 
> in type theory but we are unprepared for it. Indeed, Lojban doesn't know 
> what an h-level is; it thinks all types are sets, and the bicategory of 
> relations Rel is a model for Lojban, so we can't actually insist otherwise.
> 
> A surprising amount of 19th- and 20th-century science is missing. The worst 
> offender is probably entropy, which outside Lojban is a cross-disciplinary 
> concept connecting epistemic observations to states of systems, and inside 
> Lojban is entirely absent.
> 
> Okay, there's three examples. What's actually going on here? Well, RBDS/GDS 
> start from the assumption that the semantic space exists. Whoops! That's 
> almost entirely backwards from how languages should be defined. A language 
> definitionally, from its deductive logic, has a naturally-associated 
> category of models for that language. Each model is a semantics. There is 
> no one single universal standard semantics; or, rather, logicians say that 
> the syntax itself is the universal semantics: anything which provably 
> exists in Lojban's syntax will also exist in every semantics.
> 
> di'ai
> 
> Hope this helps,
> ~ C.
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/5341e420-cb13-4f0e-a66a-1cfe3d2caf43n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/ZwyzgIKpVkurbNLS%40stodi.digitalkingdom.org.