From cowan@ccil.org Sat Feb 10 17:45:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 11 Feb 2001 01:45:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 19439 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2001 01:45:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2001 01:45:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta2 with SMTP; 11 Feb 2001 01:45:31 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14Rlb9-0008PT-00; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:46:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:su'u In-Reply-To: from Jorge Llambias at "Feb 10, 2001 11:43:28 pm" To: Jorge Llambias Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:46:43 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan Jorge Llambias scripsit: > Either every conceivable world is possible or only the real > world is possible. I think those are the least arbitrary > definitions of "possible". Well, perhaps it depends on what "conceivable" means. (Yes, I sound like Bill Clinton.) Is there a possible world in which 2+2=5, or in which false statements are true? (I once incautiously expressed this latter as "all lies are true", and And ate me up.) I think not. > But even if you take some other > intermediate position on "possible", are you saying that > essential properties are conserved only in possible worlds, > not in every world? I don't think there are any impossible worlds; after all, they are impossible. > Why not? Isn't the very sentence you wrote a kind of reasoning? > "If the Queen of England were a swan, she would have feathers. > The Queen of England does not have feathers. Therefore, the > Queen of England is not a swan." This seems like a useful > kind of reasoning, and you need a world where the Queen is > a swan in order for it to make sense. Yes, we can do this kind of reasoning, which is safe because the Queen of England being a swan is under negation (ganai...gi). -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter