Bunches
> On 11/30/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > On 11/30/05, John E Clifford
> > > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > --- Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 11/29/05, John E Clifford
> > > > > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > > 2. Neither kinds nor stages of
> > > individuals
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > to me to be like the real line in the
> > > > > relevant
> > > > > > ways.
> > > > >
> > > > > It depends on what you take to be *the*
> > > > > relevant ways, I suppose.
> > > > > In the only way I claimed them to be
> alike
> > > is
> > > > > in their satisfying
> > > > > all of the listed thesis except for the
> one
> > > > > about breaking down
> > > > > completely into individuals.
> > > >
> > > > Cases?
> > >
> > > Cases of what?
> >
> > Things we might really use that satisfy all
> the
> > theses not tied with foundation.
>
> Dogs, unicorns, events of running, theories,
> lies, all kinds of things.
>
I'm not sure whether you, the at least occasional
champion of contextual relevance, have here
brought in some totally irrelevant set of theses
or whether you have some (unnamed) relation and
operator for each of these sets that satisfies
all the theses for "in" and "+" on the Bunches
page, except those that rest on the foundation
thesis. I can't think what those relations and
operators might be: the obvious ones for dogs and
and lies - packs — and for unicorns — herds --
all seem to be founded, that is, get down
eventually to individual dogs or lies or
unicorns (lies may not be order-irrelevant, that
is may fail symmetry).
> > > > Well, {ru'i} doesn't seem to have
> anything to
> > > do
> > > > with the continuum; it merely means
> "without
> > > > significant interruption" "whenever there
> is
> > > an
> > > > occasion" even.
> > >
> > > So you take time to be *linguistically*
> > > discrete? Interesting.
> >
> > Well, I didn't say so; I just made a comment
> > about {ru'i}, which seems to me to say
> nothing
> > about the nature of time.
>
> Oh, I agree. It only says something about how
> time
> is dealt with linguistically, not about its
> nature.
Nothing even linguistically. And if it did, it
would say that time is not even dense, let alone
analogous to the real line, since ti says that
there is nothing between two occurrences of the
event called continuous. As for other linguistic
evidence, we note that we have concepts like
"next," {lamji} which clearly apply to time and
suggest a well-ordering, not even a dense one
again.
> > But, so far as I can
> > tell, Lojban at least (but I think English
> too)
> > treats time as discrete in most situations --
> > other than certain kinds of scientific talk,
> > perhaps.
>
> So when you ask how long something took, you
> expect
> some number of indivisible chunks as an answer?
Yup — and that is what I get: a day, a second,
3.5 nanoseconds, and so on. Always with a unit
(by definition in Lojban's case) and always with
a discrete total. I suppose it is conceivable
that someone say "root 2 seconds" but I would
take that to be some sort of scientific talk,
since I don't see how he would have measured it.
> > temci tem tei time
> x1 is the
> > time-duration/interval/period/elapsed time
> from
> > time/event x2 to time/event x3
> >
> > It comes in chunks.
>
> I always thought x1 of temci was a continuous
> interval
> rather than a (very large?) number of (very
> small?) chunks.
That is about what it is scientifically, perhaps,
but not linguistically, where the answer is
always in terms of (variously sized) chunks.
> If you mean that the x1 is one chunk, then the
> system of
> time chunks seems to satisfy all the theses not
> tied with
> foundation.
Well, the system of sizes of time chunks is
probably dense (not a continuum. since the lower
bound is outside the system, not being an
interval). But on any given occasion the answer
is linguistically in terms of some unit.
Scientifically, this may be an approximation, but
we were after the linguistic facts here, not the
scientific.
I am not quite sure how we got off on this
intersting but so far rather useless discussion
(nor do I care). So, back to the point: any
additional theses that seemed to be required for
bunches? Any surprising consequences of these
theses — particularly ones that show the set
inconsistent? Independence proofs for anything
other than the foundation thesis?