[lojban-beginners] Re: closed systems error

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la ian cusku di'e

> The Problem is: Systems can draw a distinction between the name for "that 
> wich can be observed" and the name for "that wich can not be observed", and 
> that's a valid luman zei nunzga.

Originally you talked about a distinction between "that which
is named" and "that which is not named". Now you are making
a distinction between the name for "that which can be observed"
and the name for "that which can not be observed", which however
can still be named.

> They can refer to themselves (they can refer to one of their operations and 
> thus mark this side of the difference between themselves and their 
> environment), but they can not operate in the unmarked space of lo'i 
> velbo'e se velbo'e. Any talk about things that are not luman zei nunzga are 
> actually beyond what they can deal with.

I don't understand what you are saying here. An apple presumably
is not a luman zei nunzga, it is not an event of observing, and
yet the system can talk about apples.

> The systems can only deal with symbols. When we talk or think about things, 
> we really only deal with symbols. So, when we allow for things in X2 and X3 
> of velbo'e we insert something that is not a valid operation of those 
> systems. By allowing the observation of things we actually break the 
> operational closure.

You seem to be mixing what the systems talk about with what
we say about the systems. I can say "The system doesn't
observe apples, it can only deal with the symbol 'apple'."
Then I am referring to apples, something which I claim that
the system can't do, but which I can do in the metatalk about
the system.

> So the definition will have to go back to symbols for X2 and X3 (and also 
> for X4 and X1, or otherwise the system will not be able to refer to itself 
> or to its operations).

So you want the brivla "brode" to describe a relationship among
four words? Again you seem to be mixing what a system can refer
to and what we refer to in our talk about a system.

> I think with the recursive definition of x3 the problem of the "nu'o se 
> sinxa" should be solved.

I don't know. I haven't yet grasped where you are going with
all this. I understand the idea of an observation as an
operation whereby one makes a distinction and names one side
of the distinction, but I don't understand the point of the
place structure you propose. It seems that a place structure
like: "x1 gives name x2 to x3 which is distinguished from x4"
should do. Then you can use {nu} to refer to the event in
which this is accomplished. x1 would normally be a person, but
it can refer to your "systems" in a specialized context.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail