Re: events - repsonse to And

["John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>]

On Tue, 21 Feb 1995, Chris Bogart wrote:

> >Lojbab:
> >> I take this as meaning that invoking "lo [unicorn]"
> >> alters the universe of discourse - not that it makes statements about
> >> "reality" (whatever that is).
>
> >The source of my unhappiness is that it is not true that the very fact
> >of talking about a unicorn shifts us into a universe of discourse where
> >unicorns exist. "I drew a picture of a unicorn" doesn't. That can be
> >true in the 100% real kickable world in which no unicorn exists.
>
> I drew a picture of a unicorn [which I saw yesterday on the way to work]
>
>         mi finti le pixra be le pavseljirna
>
> I drew a picture of a unicorn [some variant of the "typical" unicorn]
>
>         mi finti le pixra be le'e pavseljirna
>
> The first is transparent, and does indeed shift us into a different universe
> of discourse; the second is opaque or archetypal or something, and the issue
> doesn't arise, does it?
pc:
Actually, _pixra_ subjects are notoriously opaque so suject raised from
descriptions of events in which the subject is depicted as involved.  The
parenthesis does tell us to flag this particular case as transparent and
so, on Cowan's tale, shift universes.  The typical anything is also an
odd case, since, in the present fog about what that means, we are
probably in the state where typicals may be archetypes of a sort and so
exist (_zasti_ even) in realms where the bearers of the archetype do not.

> >That said, John's point is usually valid, in the sense that for
> >"A unicorn approached me" to be potentially true, we have to
> >shift to a universe where unicorns exist.
>
> su'a You're saying that John's point is valid in transparent references, but
> not in opaque ones, xunai?
>
> >I maintain that if we want to make statements that aren't vacuously
> >true then they must be made in the context of some specific universe.
> >If "several unicorns exist" automatically shifts us into a world where
> >unicorns exist, that statement must be true. But if instead that
> >statement means "in a specific universe, several unicorns exist", you
> >can test the claim by examining that universe.
>
> Again, write it in Lojban.  If the "several unicorns" sumti is a transparent
> reference to a certain set of several unicorns, then it would appear to be
> vacuously true.  If it's an opaque reference to several le'e pavseljirna (or
> however you think opaque refs should be expressed) then the claim may or may
> not be true in a particular universe of discourse.
>
> Whatever the answer is here, I'm sure it ties back into the
> transparent/opaque question, and we can't solve one without solving the other.
pc:
Well, it is clear (:)) that existence is not an issue about opaque
contexts, since they are clearly somewhere else.  It is unclear, though
clearing what to do about transparent contexts.
BTW dreams are another classic opaque context, so And's example is not a
problem.
pc>|83