Bunches
> On 11/28/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Can you think if a
> > Lojbanically relevant use for kinds, those
> > unfounded critters?
>
> Certainly. (Intensional) kinds for example.
> Stages of individuals
> would be another.
1. I don't see anything bpeculiarly or
immediately Lojbanic in these but it would be
intersting to see something along that line.
2. Neither kinds nor stages of individuals seems
to me to be like the real line in the relevant
ways. Kinds have infima species, complete
analytic heceities — individual concepts — in
one direction, and complete state descriptions in
the other, both of which become contradictory if
further modified (of course, you may want to
allow contradictory kinds, but even those have
lower bounds). These are, of course, infinitely
complex and so unlikely to be of much use, but
the theory does allow them (indeed, I suspect
that their existence can be proven in a usual
formal system). As for stages, that will only
work if time is really continuous, but it seems
that it is discrete (or is that discreet?) though
-- calculus being what it is — taking it as
continuous is usally a nice shortcut.