Re: About 'zasti'

[David Moore <dmoore@SDNP1.UCSD.EDU>]

        I'm not entirely sure of what you were trying to explain in
a couple places.  Maybe a reference, to someplace where I too could quickly
obtain a superficial understanding of Witthenstein's claims, would help.
But I suspect that you actually care more about abuse of lo than zasti.

        But before I go into the details of your letter, I'll just
mention the first thoughts I had as it flowed by.  As a part-time math
major and full time computer geek, I use the word 'exist' multiple times
a day.  I talk about there existing an x such that x^2=4.  I talk about
a solution to a problem existing, etc.  Now, I'm fairly new to lojban,
and I realize that some of those situations are already covered by the
forms provided.  So I could perhaps get away with da for some of it.
        But also, when I and my friends hypothesize about problems,
we often say things like ''suppose that the files on the the disk
are arranged by size, then there exists a trivial allocation method''.
I suggest that having a gismu lets me make an important decision about
how I frame my thought.  I can easily make claims like 'there exists
a line given two points under euclidean geometry'.  I can also make
claims like 'there exists a smallest observable distance under
quantum physics', while still being able to say 'there is no smallest
observable distance under newtonian physics.'

        My examples at the end there were also to illustrate the point
that zasti is a multi-argument operation.  It says that 'x1 exists for
x2 under metaphysics x3'.  The fact (I was about to say 'existance')
that argument 3 specifies a metaphysics, you immediately rule out
problems with religion.  A speaker will need to instantiate that
argument with something like 'hyperbolic geometry' or 'christian
religion'.

>What I mean is that, for example, the meaning of
>the verb 'to exist' in the two sentences
>
>This desk exists
>
>and
>
>God exists
>
>is only superficially the same.

        Well, they are the same gramatically.

>If 'Exist(x)' were a legitimate predicate,
>the well-known theological argument for proving the existence of God
>by the very definition of 'God' as 'the entity everything can be
>predicated about' would be trivially true!...

        This is one of the parts I didn't really get.  I tend to avoid
well-known theological arguments for the existance of 'God'.  How
is god the entity that everything can be predicated about?  Is this
because god is omnipotent or something?  Or do you mean that the
justification for the zasti predicate could be god?

>The Lojban equivalent of (1) is (if I'm not mistaken :)
>
>(su'o)da naku zo'u da zasti ( = (su'o)da na zasti) =
>naku roda zo'u da zasti                                         (1.1)
>
>which should be compared with the semantically "plain" Lojban bridi
>corresponding to (2):
>
>(su'o)da naku zo'u da blanu ( = (su'o)da na blanu) =
>naku roda zo'u da blanu                                         (2.1)
>
>From this example, I would be induced to conclude that the best (unique?)
>interpretation for 'da' is the restricted one, even though no relative
>phrase follows:
>'there is at least one x *in the universe of discourse*'.

        I would agree with this.  Of course the universe of discourse
is very likely to be tensor spaces.  Or the universe of discourse might
be everyday life.

>In fact, if 'da' conveyed the idea of real (physical) existence, (1.1) would
>result in a contradiction.

        I don't see the problem here, both of the statements say
~[Ex (foo(x))].  The problem you are having is that you feel that the
inner expression [Ex (foo(x))] has to match?  The point of the statement
is that there is no match...  Perhaps, I'm just not understanding what
you mean. :)

co'o
mi'e deived.