Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:su'u

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:34:48 -0500 (EST)

And Rosta scripsit:

> (I) The relation between a name and its referent (e.g. between "jimc" and
> you) is a mere labelling, like the relationship between you and what
> I believe Americans call the Social Security number. (And note that
> a Social Security number needn't be arbitrary.in your sense: for example,
> you might have been born 03/04/1960 and have an IQ of 155 and have
> a Soc Sec No. 03041960155.)

For the record, a US SSN encodes the state in which you were living
when it was issued (originally typically at working age, later on
around age 2).

> (II) So-called names don't actually have referents. "Jimc" does not
> refer to you. Instead it denotes 'jimcness, jimchood', a predicate
> 'jimc(x)'. So when I say "jimc is at UCLA", what this means is that
> something that has jimcness/jimchood -- x such that jimc(x) -- is at
> UCLA. This, I think, is what pc meant by disguised descriptions.

Well, that's all right provided it is really nugatory. We can if you
like replace all talk of Socrates with talk of the Socratizer, where
"x1 is a Socratizer" is a predicate that is (intensionally) true of
Socrates and nobody else. But does this really change anything?

OTOH, if we use a predicate that is merely contingently true of Socrates,
such as "husband of Xanthippe" (ignoring the recursion), then we
get into trouble. Supposing that Xanthippe could have been married to
Xenophon instead of Socrates, then we would be compelled to
affirm sentences like "If Socrates had not married Xanthippe, he
would not have been Socrates", which seems absurd.
Or still worse: "If Xenophon had married Xanthippe, he would have
been Socrates"!

IOW "Socratizer" is a useful predicate provided it rigidly designates
Socrates over all possible worlds (or at least those where he exists).

> (I) is what we think is the Lojban view. (II) is the only view I find
> coherent. PC says Lojban needs both (II) and (I), but I haven't understood
> the rationale for (I) yet. 

Well, what makes "John Cowan" inherently a predicate, and "13550xxxx"
(censored) inherently a mere label? Why can't I be designated equally
well as the Johncowanizer (distinct from my cousin, a different
Johncowanizer with his own predicate), or as the SSNonethreefivefivezero-
(censored)-izer?

-- 
John Cowan [email-masked]
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
--Douglas Hofstadter