[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > > Well, consider those Amazonian lunatics who think every new day is > > > announced by the rising of a new Sun individual. If we can get them to > > > believe that all these Suns are merely avatars of Apollo Helios, then > > > why cannot they retort that (by the same token) we will next tell them > > > that the fish they eat every day are merely avatars of Amazonus Piscus > > > > They can retort that. I'm not sure if I see what you were getting at > > The issue is that there really is only one Sun in fact (it's not a new > Sun-object daily), but the fish are separate fish. If we are telling them > the first, why shouldn't they expect to hear the second as well > > IOW, is there any real difference between "All daily suns are one sun" > and "All daily fish (as in, give us this day our daily fish) are one fish"? Yes, if you also believe that the sun is a star that comes into eyeshot each day. Otherwise, no. In terms of the categories I've been proposing for lojban, I could capture the similarities and differences, but I'm not sure that is the issue here. > > Each of those kinds has an avatar (what I called Instance elsewhere) > > that we might call 'Fido', yes. But we (IMO) cannot recognize Fido > > except as something that is an instance of Mr Fido or of a subkind > > thereof > > Because today's avatar of Mr. Dog consists in all those dogs that are > extant today, and therefore the avatar is not a dog? No. Because the way we recognize Fido, as opposed to Mr Fido, is by examining energy-matter and checking whether a pattern in it has the property of Fidohood (= the property of being an instance of Mr Fido). This is why I have thought that I can describe the same states of affairs as "kissing Bob" and "kissing Mr Bob". In each case I observe a bit energy-matter whose pattern makes it quality as an instance of Mr Bob -- as something with Bobhood. If I describe it as "kissing Bob" then I am saying that there is something that is a bit of the local world's energy-matter and it is an instance of Mr Bob. If I describe it as "kissing Mr Bob", I have inferred that I am in fact observing Mr Bob. It shouldn't be surprising that Mr Bob is kissable, because "exists in spacetime" is one of the properties that define Bobhood and Mr Bob. The ontology that says that one kind can occur in multiple worlds is in conflict with the ontology that says that every world is a discrete mass of matter and energy swirling in spacetime. In the former view, Bob is essentially a *pattern* in energy-matter. In the latter view, Bob is essentially an amount of energy-matter, and the pattern serves simply to define the boundaries of the amount. I think Lojban should allow both ontologies despite the conflict. After all, who knows which is correct? Is one more correct than the other? And moreover, some of us may not care. Me, I switch between them like looking at the Necker cube. --And.