Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: possible worlds

From: Edward Cherlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 14:19:38 -0700

At 01:23 PM 6/23/2001, Adam Raizen wrote:
>la lojbab cusku di'e
>
> > What is the relationship between the event and the sentence in the
>English
> > phrase "In the event of blah, i will do blecch". There is clearly
>some
> > relationship between the event and the rest of the sentence, but it
>is
> > vague what that relationship is other than the event occurring is
>necessary.
> >
> > Thus fau associates an event with a bridi and says that its
>occurrence is
> > in some way important to the truth of that bridi. Works rather like
>the
> > English.
>
>At least with the English, the idiom *does* mean at least that if the
>event occurs, the main sentence also occurs.

This is ambiguous, but it is commonly a statement of intention, not of fact.

We do not have a clear modal logic model in Lojban for the meanings of such 
statements and the evaluaton of their truth. Modal logics study statements 
about possibility and necessity, probability, intention, permission, 
belief, and the like. I can dig out an old textbook and post some notes, if 
anybody thinks it will help.

We also don't have any useful logical model of *impossible* worlds and 
other weird ontologies. I don't know whether anyone has successfully 
constructed one, but I could look. Quine wrote about these problems, such 
as the "square circle" and "Plato's beard" but certainly didn't resolve them.