[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote: > I maintain that in a world with no unicorns, all of the > following are true: > > All unicorns are white. > All unicorns are purple. > 0% of all unicorns are male. > 50% of all unicorns are male. > 100% of all unicorns are male. > 200% of all unicorns are male. In fact, these statements are meaningless. > "All trespassers will be shot" can be true in the real world, > even if there is no trespasser ever. This statement is interesting > for as long as we don't know whether there will ever be trespassers. > If we find out that there never will be any trespassers, the > statement becomes trite. If we find out that there will be some > trespasser, then we know that it entails "some trespasser will > be shot". But we can't reach this conclusion unless we know that > the set of trespassers is not empty. It's a 'true' statement because it "takes you to an imaginary world" with trespassers. In a world without them, could you ever discover a contradictory fact? Of course not! When we agree that no unicorns exist in our discussion, we mean that any subsequent statements about them are meaningless. Further statements about unicorns exist outside the parameters of logic. -- "In the Soviet Union, government controls industry. In the United States, industry controls government. That is the principal structural difference between the two great oligarchies of our time." -- Edward Abbey