-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
Sent: 18 March 2007 19:43
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL (01)
> >
> > If you can represent it as a set, then it is a set.
> >
>
> >> That doesn't mean the universe "is" a set. To say that something can
> >> be represented as a set for purposes of defining truth-values of
> >> sentences is a very different thing from saying it IS a set.
> >>
> >
> > I disagree. I think these are exactly the same
> > thing to say. To say that a collection is a set
> > is to say nothing about it at all.
> >
>
>In many philosophical contexts it is important to keep *sets* (abstract
>non-temporal entities)
>
>[Chris Partridge] I believe David Lewis (In Plurarity of Worlds) rails
>against this interpretation. He sees sets (especially small finite sets
>whose members are not scattered) as clearly concrete, with an obvious
>spatio-temporal location. Can I put that on people's reading lists :-). (02)
Lewis's book Parts of Classes does indeed draw set theory and
mereology closer together, in a beautiful way -- but he does not
think that sets are concrete -- nor that they are 'clearly' anything;
on the contrary he insists that they are a great mystery. (03)
The parts of the class {Chris Menzel, Pat Hayes} include: {Chris
Menzel} and {Pat Hayes}. The parts of Chris Menzel include his
molecules. Chris Menzel is not a part, but rather an element of
{Chris Menzel}. The former is concrete. The latter is, well, anybody's
guess.
BS (04)
CP>I was hoping I would not have to dig out the references. (05)
CP>Look at section 1.7 Concreteness of On the Plurality of Worlds . (06)
CP>Look within that, for example, at p.83. "But a set of located things does
seem to have a location, though perhaps a divided location: it is where its
members are." And "But if a universal is wholly present in each of its
located particulars, as by definition it is, that mean it is where its
instances are. It is multiply located, not unlocated." Etc. etc. (07)
CP>David L seem to agree with you in so far as the distinction between
concrete and abstract is "well, anybody's guess ". (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: 17/03/2007
12:33 (010)
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: 17/03/2007
12:33 (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (012)
|