Tenses ... my two cents

[cbmvax!uunet!mwvm.mitre.org!m16569 (Carl Burke)]

As I understand it, this debate which has been clogging my in-basket
is raging over whether or not to incorporate a fourth "time" cmavo,
for a set of "past, present, future, and *not applicable*".  The fourth
tense refers to (in a relativistic sense) events outside the perceptible
area of space-time; *fourth tense* events cannot possibly interact with
the speaker, at least in the location/interval in question.
Is this an adequate non-technical summation?

This seems to be a useful concept, but it would find applicability outside
the strictly physics-related relativity frame.  For example, a criminal's
alibi is an attempt to assert a *fourth tense* relation with the crime,
under the prevailing conditions.  Locked room mysteries, by limiting
the communications means, isolate the "world-line" of the crime; the
detective must identify the means by which communication occurred to reach
the goal of "solving the case".  In the limit, barring FTL communications
a la Bell's Theorem, you have the cases argued (ad nauseum) so far.

This would appear to be every bit as useful as the addition of a third
value to traditional Boolean logic: True, False, *unask the question*.
The third value holds where neither a true or false value is applicable;
the traditional question is "When did you stop beating your wife?"
I seem to recall that there is another way to assert this third truth
value in Lojban, but I do not recall the method.  If this is available,
then there is no need (other than shorthand convenience) for the fourth
tense; you merely state that *neither true nor false* *actor* *relation*
*arguments* ***at all times/places, if you must specify***

Maybe this will breathe yet more life into this maelstrom.  Maybe not.

Carl Burke    m16569@mwvm.mitre.org
My opinions are my own, and are *True/False* held by my employers.
*
*        Carl