WikiDiscuss

---

> > > Thus, the
> > > response pointing to the air molecules in the
> > box
> > > (we do agree that they were there all the
> > time
> > > don't we?) is not an acceptable correction
> >
> > Well, in some cases it might be. In fact, many
> > people rejoice
> > in making such corrections. It is not a nice
> > correction (unless
> > for some reason it was important to consider
> > air as a thing),
> > but once made, we have to deal with it. "There
> > is nothing in the
> > box!", "yes there is, there's air in it!",
> > "Well, yes, but
> > I meant that there's nothing but air in the
> > box".
>
> But on your view there was nothing at all in the
> box, the air wasn't available to be there until
> it was mentioned. Unless something not mentioned
> can be in the universe, in which case, where the
> limits? Why not allow the usual sort of universe,
> since it is easier to deal with?

I'm lost as to what your objection is here. You seem
to be identifying the universe of discourse (a mathematical
set) with the physical universe (nothing like a mathematical
set). The air will always be in the physical universe
whether we talk about it or not, or even whether we have
ever identified it or given it a name.

> The fact that it happens all the time — that is
> that that verbal exchange occurs — is evidence
> that what is happening is not what you claim,
> i.e. that the universe does not contain something
> until it is mentioned.

I hope I never claimed such a thing about the universe!
But also not even about the universe of discourse. All I
said was that if you mention it, then it is in the
universe of discourse, not that if you don't mention it
then it is not.

> How were they there on the cow farm if not yet
> mentioned at the beginning of the conversation?
> I see that you are allowing that somethings other
> than what are mentioned are in the universe, so
> mentioning the first time them is sometimes not
> introducing them. But now why then do we ever
> need to introduce something at all — it may be
> there alreeady and we just did not notice — as
> the cows were on the farm, say.

Yes, so what's the point? I certainly don't have an
algorithm to list the things that are in the universe
of discourse for any discourse. Figuring that out
is a hard job of interpretation. If you get the
context wrong, you may completely misunderstand a
conversation, there is nothing new about that.

> > > If not then
> > > the use of the expression must introduce
> > them, if
> > > they were there already, where are the
> > limits? I
> > > pass over our differences about what "refers"
> > > means.
> >
> > I'm not sure what kind of limits you are
> > talking about.
> >
> If the universe contains some things that are not
> mentioned in the conversation, how does this
> differ from a universe given at the beginning
> with only the referential relations being filled
> in as the conversation proceeds?

One difference that occurs to me is that some things may be
incompatible to share a universe of discourse. But maybe not,
maybe that can be sorted out with appropriate sets of
referential relations.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250