Subject: Re: [lojban] Not talking about imaginary worlds

From: Björn Gohla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 01:28:58 +0200

On Tuesday 03 July 2001 00:33, [email-masked] wrote:
> b. gohla's hierarchy is about the way that such ideas get developed. The
> only major objection might be that "if p then q" usually means something
> like "q is true in all (or most or the uppermost or some such thing) worlds
> in which p is true"

which fits neatly into my proposal, since all those could be considered 
derived from the one where you first pondered the truth of p.

> Again, I think that all of this superstructure is misguided -- at least
> until it can be shown that we really need it. I think tha simply
> considering what we *do* with language is kore natural and effective than
> creating new things for descriptive langauge to be *about*.

there really is not much to it, it is how i visualized edward cherlin's 

"Let us suppose X" says the 	
mathematician, physicist, or science fiction writer, "then ignoring the 
obvious contradictions, what happens?"

by saying "suppose X" you walk into a room with the specific property that X 
is always true within it, so you can talk treating X as a fact, no matter if 
it it true in the "physical" world.

the advantange of my approach is that it is easily applied recursively, and 
that from the perspective of any specific universe it is itself "real" and 
all derived ones are speculative, when you enter a derived universe it in 
turn becomes reality. 
 
- -- 
- --------------------
/* Nobody will ever see this message :-) */
panic("Cannot initialize video hardware\n");
2.0.38 /usr/src/linux/arch/m68k/atari/atafb.c
pub 1024D/834F4976 2001-01-07 Björn Gohla (Wissenschaftler, Weltbürger) 
<[email-masked]>
Key fingerprint = 9FF4 FEDA CCDF DA0E 14D5 8129 6C14 3C39 834F 4976
sub 1024g/29571FE2 2001-01-07