From pycyn@aol.com Sat Feb 10 18:06:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 11 Feb 2001 02:06:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 36806 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2001 02:06:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2001 02:06:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r18.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.72) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Feb 2001 02:06:51 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.91.6bef899 (14374) for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:06:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <91.6bef899.27b74db6@aol.com> Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:06:46 EST Subject: RE:imaginary worlds(MORE VERBOSE) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_91.6bef899.27b74db6_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_91.6bef899.27b74db6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en (being cautious) We are along way from the {su=E2=80=99u} thread indeed now= , which=20 was, recall, about how to talk about the =E2=80=93ness or =E2=80=93ing of a= n individual in=20 Lojban and then about what these could possibly mean.=C2=A0 So we started w= ith an=20 abstract entity, assumed to exist, and asked how to refer to it in Lojban.= =C2=A0=20 We now seem to be talking about a well-established=C2=A0category of Lojban= =20 grammar, cmene, and asking some or all of the following questions. =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 What do cmene mean?=C2=A0What is the sense of a cmene?=20 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 How does a cmene attach to its referent?=20 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 How do we pick out the right referent of a cmene (in this o= r=20 any other world)? =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 What is essential to an individual who is thereferent of a= =20 cmene?=C2=A0 Is this connected to the cmene? =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Are any of these things properties or are they sui generis? =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 What happens across worlds under the various positions on=20 these issues? And probably a few more. Background:a world (for now and contrary to Mad Ludwig in his youth)= =20 is a bunch of things,and, as an immediate consequence, a whole bunch of set= s=20 of things.=C2=A0 A language is a bunch of words, and, as an immediate conse= quence,=20 a bunch of sets of words, and then, related to those, a bunch of strings of= =20 words.=C2=A0 A language is supposed to be about a world, we need some conne= ction,=20 an interpretation of the language in terms of a world. We start, we think,= =20 with one world and assign words of various sets to various sets of things,= =20 including words of one basic set (at least) to things taken individually.= =C2=A0I=20 does not matter in this process what class of words we assign to, say, simp= le=20 sets, except that the grammar must somehow give rise to strings which work= =20 out to say =E2=80=9Cx is a member of s=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cs is included = in t=E2=80=9D and the like.=C2=A0 Nor=20 does it matter which member of this class we assign to a particular simple= =20 set, say.=C2=A0 From another class we, equally arbitrarily,assign members t= o=20 individual things, preumably from a set that allows saying that the things = it=20 points to are members and makes it at least difficult to say that they have= =20 members.=C2=A0 [Cowan can take my talk about sets as being about discontinu= ous=20 individuals, if he wants, with the corresponding kinds of relations among=20 them.] In our initial world, a given thing will belong to some sets and not to=20 others and will be the unique member of one set.=C2=A0 Many of these sets w= ill=20 have words from the language assigned to them =E2=80=93 or longer expressio= ns that=20 play the same role (as strings come to be analyzed) as words of the=20 appropriate class.=C2=A0 The singleton of a given object may, for example, = be=20 assigned to a word or phrase =E2=80=93 or to several such =E2=80=93 or to n= one --=C2=A0 in the=20 langauge.=C2=A0 The sets of the world form hierarchies by inclusion and som= e of=20 the higher sets may get =E2=80=9Cnames=E2=80=9D as well as the lower ones(a= nd some at any=20 level may not get names at all).=C2=A0 Notice how undisciplined the connect= ions=20 are here: we want to say a few things but however we assign the words, we c= an=20 then pick from all the strings some with appropriate structures to say this= =20 (given two names of individuals and the name of a two-place relation, any=20 string that contains the three items will do) and, as long as we are=20 consistent about it, it will work. Now,suppose we move to another world and suppose (it=E2=80=99s easier when = doing=20 this) that this world can contain things that also are in the first world,= =20 but other things as well and not necessarily all the things from the first= =20 world (indeed,not necessarily any of them =E2=80=93 apologies to Plantinga= =E2=80=99s=20 ontological proof). We typically want to be somewhat less arbitrary with ou= r=20 language now: we know what kinds of words go with individuals, what with=20 predicates and so on, so we will not shift these connections around (there = is=20 an alternate approach where we keep the same world by shift assignments or= =20 connections around, but that doesn=E2=80=99t improve anything but ontologic= al=20 muddles).=C2=A0 Are other types of connections also more restricted =E2=80= =93 can we=20 assign any member of the set-words class to any old set, and so on? If we=20 look downward to the members of the set, it seems we can: sets in the new=20 world, will, after all, likely not have the same members as any old -world= =20 set, given the the two worlds don=E2=80=99t have exactly the same things in= them.=C2=A0=20 But if we look at the level of the set and higher, we see that there are=20 limits to this freedom.=C2=A0 The set we call =E2=80=9Cred,=E2=80=9D for ex= ample, in the new=20 world must, like the set red in the old, be disjoint from a number of other= =20 disjoint sets, called =E2=80=9Cgreen,=E2=80=9D =E2=80=98blue,=E2=80=9D and = so on, and fall under another=20 set =E2=80=9Ccolored=E2=80=9D and that under =E2=80=9Cspatial,=E2=80=9D and= on up.=C2=A0 The structure has to=20 come over, though the particular sets are not fixed.=C2=A0 (We would be tot= ally=20 lost in a world described by =E2=80=9CSuppose red were not a color,=E2=80= =A6=E2=80=9D though=20 admittedly less by =E2=80=9CSuppose a whale were not a mammal.=E2=80=9D =E2= =80=93the notion of=20 =E2=80=9Cessential=E2=80=9D in this sense is indeed scalar rather than pola= r.)=C2=A0=20 When we come to similar questions about individuals and names, we notice we= =20 have already given the game away a bit.=C2=A0 We talk about the same thing = in both=20 worlds before we have names for it in at least one and before we have=20 considered what classes it has to be in (what predicates it satisfies).=C2= =A0 That=20 is, we can identify the individual independently of what we say about it at= =20 all, and we do that because of its uniqueness, its vishesha, say, the means= =20 whereby we find the thing in any world it is in (and find out it is not in= =20 the worlds it is not in).=C2=A0 Now we have a whole series of questions to = ask=20 about assigning names and the like to this individual in the new world.=C2= =A0=20 1. Does it have to get the same name as in the old world?=C2=A0 Usual= ly not:=20 roses and the like, y=E2=80=99know. 2. Does it have to have the same properties =E2=80=93 or some set of = identical=20 properties (and thus impose some further restrictions on assigning names to= =20 sets) as in the old world?=C2=A0 Again, probably not =E2=80=93 we can imagi= ne everything=20 changed in hypotheticating. 3. Does whatever gets the name this thing had in this world in the ne= xt=20 world have to have (some set of ) the same properties as this thing had in= =20 this world in the next world?=C2=A0 Still probably not =E2=80=93 for one th= ing, the name=20 may not be used at all in world 2 or not used for anything in that world at= =20 least (Cowan is a character in world 2 fiction, just as Holmes =E2=80=93 a = perfectly=20 nice guy in world 2 =E2=80=93 is in world 1).=C2=A0But further we want to b= e able to=20 suppose worlds in which someone called Cowan is a master detective, without= =20 supposing the Cowan, the one we know, ever is.=20 Somethinghas gang aglee here.=C2=A0 It would seem that nothing could= be=20 made to follow from any hypothetical contrary-to-fact:=E2=80=9CIf Socrates = were and=20 Irish washerwoman, =E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D then what?=C2=A0 The person who is ca= lled =E2=80=9CSocrates=E2=80=9D is=20 world1 might well be an Irish washerwoman in world 2, but, lacking in that= =20 world all of the characteristics Socrates had in world 1, might do absolute= ly=20 anything at all, without clarifying the issue the hypothetical had in mind.= =C2=A0=20 Similarly, an Irish washerwoman might be named Socrates in world 2 without = it=20 telling us anything useful (except about, maybe, some Irishman=E2=80=99s se= nse of=20 humor).=C2=A0What we are really interested in, it turns out on careful exam= ination=20 is: 4. What restrictions are placed on a thing that satisfies in world 2= =20 some description that in world 1 was=C2=A0satisfied=C2=A0 bythe holder of t= he name?=C2=A0=20 Essence,vishesha, is just numerical identity and a useful sense of a name (= it=20 solves the problem of why =E2=80=9CVenus =3D Venus=E2=80=9D is necessary wh= ile =E2=80=9CHesperus =3D=20 Phosphorus=E2=80=9D is not), but carries no properties with it.=C2=A0On the= other hand,=20 the name, per se, carries neither properties nor numerical identity and so = is=20 useless for most hypotheticals, which come down to laws, relations among=20 predicates eventually.=C2=A0The predicate thus comes in somehow =E2=80=93 a= nd how else but=20 by description? None of this makes a name ordinarily a disguised description=E2=80=93 nor a= rigid=20 designator, for that matter.=C2=A0But in hyptheticating context, the (well,= a)=20 connotation of the name comes to function as its sense, the means to pick o= ut=20 the right person in the new world, so that we can then argue for or from so= me=20 law or observation, what someone like Socrates in (often not very clearly)= =20 specified ways would do as an Irish washerwoman.=C2=A0 So our intererest is= =20 neither in the thing nor the name, but in something two removes from either= .=C2=A0=20 --part1_91.6bef899.27b74db6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en (being cautious) We are along way from the {su=E2=80=99u} thread indeed n= ow, which=20
was, recall, about how to talk about the =E2=80=93ness or =E2=80=93ing = of an individual in=20
Lojban and then about what these could possibly mean.=C2=A0 So we start= ed with an=20
abstract entity, assumed to exist, and asked how to refer to it in Lojb= an.=C2=A0=20
We now seem to be talking about a well-established=C2=A0category of Loj= ban=20
grammar, cmene, and asking some or all of the following questions.
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 What do cmene mean?=C2=A0What is the sense of a cmene= ?=20
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 How does a cmene attach to its referent?=20
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 How do we pick out the right referent of a cmene (in = this or=20
any other world)?
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 What is essential to an individual who is thereferent= of a=20
cmene?=C2=A0 Is this connected to the cmene?
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Are any of these things properties or are they sui ge= neris?
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 What happens across worlds under the various position= s on=20
these issues?
      And probably a few more.
      Background:a world (for now and co= ntrary to Mad Ludwig in his youth)=20
is a bunch of things,and, as an immediate consequence, a whole bunch of= sets=20
of things.=C2=A0 A language is a bunch of words, and, as an immediate c= onsequence,=20
a bunch of sets of words, and then, related to those, a bunch of string= s of=20
words.=C2=A0 A language is supposed to be about a world, we need some c= onnection,=20
an interpretation of the language in terms of a world. We start, we thi= nk,=20
with one world and assign words of various sets to various sets of thin= gs,=20
including words of one basic set (at least) to things taken individuall= y.=C2=A0I=20
does not matter in this process what class of words we assign to, say, = simple=20
sets, except that the grammar must somehow give rise to strings which w= ork=20
out to say =E2=80=9Cx is a member of s=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cs is inclu= ded in t=E2=80=9D and the like.=C2=A0 Nor=20
does it matter which member of this class we assign to a particular sim= ple=20
set, say.=C2=A0 From another class we, equally arbitrarily,assign membe= rs to=20
individual things, preumably from a set that allows saying that the thi= ngs it=20
points to are members and makes it at least difficult to say that they = have=20
members.=C2=A0 [Cowan can take my talk about sets as being about discon= tinuous=20
individuals, if he wants, with the corresponding kinds of relations amo= ng=20
them.]
In our initial world, a given thing will belong to some sets and not to= =20
others and will be the unique member of one set.=C2=A0 Many of these se= ts will=20
have words from the language assigned to them =E2=80=93 or longer expre= ssions that=20
play the same role (as strings come to be analyzed) as words of the=20
appropriate class.=C2=A0 The singleton of a given object may, for examp= le, be=20
assigned to a word or phrase =E2=80=93 or to several such =E2=80=93 or = to none --=C2=A0 in the=20
langauge.=C2=A0 The sets of the world form hierarchies by inclusion and= some of=20
the higher sets may get =E2=80=9Cnames=E2=80=9D as well as the lower on= es(and some at any=20
level may not get names at all).=C2=A0 Notice how undisciplined the con= nections=20
are here: we want to say a few things but however we assign the words, = we can=20
then pick from all the strings some with appropriate structures to say = this=20
(given two names of individuals and the name of a two-place relation, a= ny=20
string that contains the three items will do) and, as long as we are=20
consistent about it, it will work.
Now,suppose we move to another world and suppose (it=E2=80=99s easier w= hen doing=20
this) that this world can contain things that also are in the first wor= ld,=20
but other things as well and not necessarily all the things from the fi= rst=20
world (indeed,not necessarily any of them =E2=80=93 apologies to Planti= nga=E2=80=99s=20
ontological proof). We typically want to be somewhat less arbitrary wit= h our=20
language now: we know what kinds of words go with individuals, what wit= h=20
predicates and so on, so we will not shift these connections around (th= ere is=20
an alternate approach where we keep the same world by shift assignments= or=20
connections around, but that doesn=E2=80=99t improve anything but ontol= ogical=20
muddles).=C2=A0 Are other types of connections also more restricted =E2= =80=93 can we=20
assign any member of the set-words class to any old set, and so on? If = we=20
look downward to the members of the set, it seems we can: sets in the n= ew=20
world, will, after all, likely not have the same members as any old -wo= rld=20
set, given the the two worlds don=E2=80=99t have exactly the same thing= s in them.=C2=A0=20
But if we look at the level of the set and higher, we see that there ar= e=20
limits to this freedom.=C2=A0 The set we call =E2=80=9Cred,=E2=80=9D fo= r example, in the new=20
world must, like the set red in the old, be disjoint from a number of o= ther=20
disjoint sets, called =E2=80=9Cgreen,=E2=80=9D =E2=80=98blue,=E2=80=9D = and so on, and fall under another=20
set =E2=80=9Ccolored=E2=80=9D and that under =E2=80=9Cspatial,=E2=80=9D= and on up.=C2=A0 The structure has to=20
come over, though the particular sets are not fixed.=C2=A0 (We would be= totally=20
lost in a world described by =E2=80=9CSuppose red were not a color,=E2= =80=A6=E2=80=9D though=20
admittedly less by =E2=80=9CSuppose a whale were not a mammal.=E2=80=9D= =E2=80=93the notion of=20
=E2=80=9Cessential=E2=80=9D in this sense is indeed scalar rather than = polar.)=C2=A0=20
When we come to similar questions about individuals and names, we notic= e we=20
have already given the game away a bit.=C2=A0 We talk about the same th= ing in both=20
worlds before we have names for it in at least one and before we have=20
considered what classes it has to be in (what predicates it satisfies).= =C2=A0 That=20
is, we can identify the individual independently of what we say about i= t at=20
all, and we do that because of its uniqueness, its vishesha, say, the m= eans=20
whereby we find the thing in any world it is in (and find out it is not= in=20
the worlds it is not in).=C2=A0 Now we have a whole series of questions= to ask=20
about assigning names and the like to this individual in the new world.= =C2=A0=20
1.       Does it have to get the same nam= e as in the old world?=C2=A0 Usually not:=20
roses and the like, y=E2=80=99know.
2.       Does it have to have the same pr= operties =E2=80=93 or some set of identical=20
properties (and thus impose some further restrictions on assigning name= s to=20
sets) as in the old world?=C2=A0 Again, probably not =E2=80=93 we can i= magine everything=20
changed in hypotheticating.
3.       Does whatever gets the name this= thing had in this world in the next=20
world have to have (some set of ) the same properties as this thing had= in=20
this world in the next world?=C2=A0 Still probably not =E2=80=93 for on= e thing, the name=20
may not be used at all in world 2 or not used for anything in that worl= d at=20
least (Cowan is a character in world 2 fiction, just as Holmes =E2=80= =93 a perfectly=20
nice guy in world 2 =E2=80=93 is in world 1).=C2=A0But further we want = to be able to=20
suppose worlds in which someone called Cowan is a master detective, wit= hout=20
supposing the Cowan, the one we know, ever is.=20
      Somethinghas gang aglee here.=C2= =A0 It would seem that nothing could be=20
made to follow from any hypothetical contrary-to-fact:=E2=80=9CIf Socra= tes were and=20
Irish washerwoman, =E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D then what?=C2=A0 The person who i= s called =E2=80=9CSocrates=E2=80=9D is=20
world1 might well be an Irish washerwoman in world 2, but, lacking in t= hat=20
world all of the characteristics Socrates had in world 1, might do abso= lutely=20
anything at all, without clarifying the issue the hypothetical had in m= ind.=C2=A0=20
Similarly, an Irish washerwoman might be named Socrates in world 2 with= out it=20
telling us anything useful (except about, maybe, some Irishman=E2=80=99= s sense of=20
humor).=C2=A0What we are really interested in, it turns out on careful = examination=20
is:
4.       What restrictions are placed on = a thing that satisfies in world 2=20
some description that in world 1 was=C2=A0satisfied=C2=A0 bythe holder = of the name?=C2=A0=20
Essence,vishesha, is just numerical identity and a useful sense of a na= me (it=20
solves the problem of why =E2=80=9CVenus =3D Venus=E2=80=9D is necessar= y while =E2=80=9CHesperus =3D=20
Phosphorus=E2=80=9D is not), but carries no properties with it.=C2=A0On= the other hand,=20
the name, per se, carries neither properties nor numerical identity and= so is=20
useless for most hypotheticals, which come down to laws, relations amon= g=20
predicates eventually.=C2=A0The predicate thus comes in somehow =E2=80= =93 and how else but=20
by description?
None of this makes a name ordinarily a disguised description=E2=80=93 n= or a rigid=20
designator, for that matter.=C2=A0But in hyptheticating context, the (w= ell, a)=20
connotation of the name comes to function as its sense, the means to pi= ck out=20
the right person in the new world, so that we can then argue for or fro= m some=20
law or observation, what someone like Socrates in (often not very clear= ly)=20
specified ways would do as an Irish washerwoman.=C2=A0 So our intereres= t is=20
neither in the thing nor the name, but in something two removes from ei= ther.=C2=A0=20
--part1_91.6bef899.27b74db6_boundary--