From pycyn@aol.com Wed Feb 14 06:16:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 14 Feb 2001 14:16:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 52327 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2001 14:16:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2001 14:16:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r14.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.68) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Feb 2001 14:16:27 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.39.10a3168a (3733) for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:16:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <39.10a3168a.27bbed2e@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:16:14 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Imaginary worlds (MORE VERBOSE)(but hoepfully cleaner) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_39.10a3168a.27bbed2e_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_39.10a3168a.27bbed2e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/13/2001 1:52:20 PM Central Standard Time, lojbab@lojban.org writes: > But can I ask one clarifying > question? Regardless of whatever imaginary world you may be considering, > when you express an utterance it is evaluated in only one world which may > be real or imaginary, right? A given statement is either true or false, > things exist or they do not exist. Right? > > The problem with "imaginary worlds" is that merely posing them suggests to > some people including myself, that the invocation of possible worlds > invokes ALL possible worlds at once, so that therefore unicorns both exist > and not exist at one time, and all truths dependent on the conditions and > existences of the world are indeterminant (i.e. only logical > Yes, a statement is evaluated at one world at a time. Talking about them brings them all about (whichever ones you have in mind to have, anyhow) but when it comes to evaluation, all but one are buried in quatifications like "possible" etc. So, in this world it is presumably possible that unicorns exist (they do in some possible worlds) and also that they do (others, including this one, don't have ''em) but the claim that both situation si possible is evaluated just in this world. --part1_39.10a3168a.27bbed2e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/13/2001 1:52:20 PM Central Standard Time,
lojbab@lojban.org writes:



But can I ask one clarifying
question?  Regardless of whatever imaginary world you may be considering,
when you express an utterance it is evaluated in only one world which may
be real or imaginary, right?  A given statement is either true or false,
things exist or they do not exist.  Right?

The problem with "imaginary worlds" is that merely posing them suggests to
some people including myself, that the invocation of possible worlds
invokes ALL possible worlds at once, so that therefore unicorns both exist
and not exist at one time, and all truths dependent on the conditions and
existences of the  world are indeterminant (i.e. only logical
contradictions are invalid).




Yes, a statement is evaluated at one world at a time.  Talking about them
brings them all about (whichever ones you have in mind to have, anyhow) but
when it comes to evaluation, all but one are buried in quatifications like
"possible" etc.  So, in this world it is presumably possible that unicorns
exist (they do in some possible worlds) and also that they do (others,
including this one, don't have ''em) but the claim that both situation si
possible is evaluated just in this world. --part1_39.10a3168a.27bbed2e_boundary--