WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> --- John E Clifford wrote:
> > > > 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 objection is (to repeat myself) that on your
view (things aren't in the universe until
mentioned) there was nothing in the box until the
air molecules were mentioned — nothing that can
be brought up in the conversation, nothing in the
universe of discourse. Far from confusing the
physical universe with the u/d, I am insisting on
the distinction and taking the u/d in your sense,
rather than some more common one.

> > 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.

You actually said that mentioning it the first
time *introduced* it into the universe of
discourse, whence I infer it was not there
before. You may have *meant* something like "if
I mention it then it is in the u/d even if not
previously obvious that it was" or some such, but
it is hard to take your words in that sense.
On the other hand, I am glad to see that your
sense of u/d is not hopelessly diffderent from a
normal pone, for all that its operations are put
rather strangely.To be sure, what is in the u/d
varies with context, but it takes a fairly
clearly specialized context to leave out gross
physical objects, even when most of them go
unmentioned.

> > 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.

Well, the Gricean line is that the u/d must be
decided by the interaction of the interlocutors.
If one of the participants wants it to be
crucially different from the (loosely defined, to
be sure) standard set (roughly gross physical
objects and — for Lojban — all abstracta) then
he must make that difference overt at the
beginning. Failing to do so is an offence in the
language game. The air molecule guy is probably
at most weakly in violation, but maybe in
violation none the less — even on the standrd
notion of u/d and certainly on the notion you
(only, apparently) seem to have been presenting.

> > > > 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.

Huh? There are some things that cannot both be
in a u/d. This, assuming some moderate sense of
coherence is surely true (the irresistable force
and the immovable object are classic casses).
But a u/d need not be coherent in this sense, so
that does not seem to be a real problem — nor
one that is relevant to the point at issue.