From opoudjis@optushome.com.au Sat Apr 19 07:36:58 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_5); 19 Apr 2003 14:36:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 8773 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2003 14:36:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Apr 2003 14:36:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail009.syd.optusnet.com.au) (210.49.20.137) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Apr 2003 14:36:32 -0000 Received: from optushome.com.au (c17354.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au [210.49.155.214]) by mail009.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3JEaVn13429 for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:36:32 +1000 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:36:31 +1000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: mu'ei To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <50096415-7274-11D7-A233-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) From: Nick Nicholas X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=90350612 X-Yahoo-Profile: opoudjis A discussion that should be going on jboske or bpfk? Yes. But anyway: the problem with possible worlds is that, while they are there to give hypothetical scenarios a cardinality (and thereby a denotation), there are only three sensible numbers for them: no; ro; and me'i. me'i is always infinite, never a finite number, because given that you're counting entire worlds, you can have infinitely many, infinitesimally different worlds, all corresponding to your scenario. *If I had a million bucks (and Sun Yat-Sen was running China), I'd give half to charity. *If I had a million bucks (and Fred Flintstone was running China), I'd give half to charity. *If I had a million bucks (and Sun Yat-Sen was running Fred Flintstone), I'd give half to charity. *If I had a million bucks (and Sun Yat-Sen was eating Fred Flintstone), I'd give half to charity. Sun and Fred have nothing to do with my counterfactual scenario. But they make for distinct possible worlds --- and as long as I get my million shmackers, such a world still fulfils my hypothetical. This is why possible worlds, though conceptually useful, aren't terribly practical, and it's a good think normal linguistic logic keeps them "under the hood". If and when the topic comes up on bpfk, I'd much rather an alternative like expanding the definition of ka'e as sumti tcita to encompass me'imu'ei, and na'eka'e na for romu'ei. Or something. ### Momenton senpretende paseman mi retenis kaj # Dr NICK NICHOLAS. kultis kvazaux # French & Italian, senhorlogxan elizeon # Univ. of Melbourne (Dume: # nickn@unimelb.edu.au [Victor Sadler, _Memkritiko_ 90] # http://www.opoudjis.net