Chris Partridge schrieb:
> Ingvar,
> 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 :-).
>
>
> whose members are spatiotemporal entities
> distinct from the *aggregate* (Mario Bunge) or the *collection* (Peter
> Simons) of the same spatiotemporal entities. (01)
Yes, please, put it on the reading list! This would make it clear that
as soon as the distinction between 'abstract non-temporal entities'
(sets, numbers, universals, propositions, etc.) and 'concrete
spatiotemporal entities' (you, me, the things around us, molecules,
etc.) is accepted, a philosophical-ontological problem arises: does it
nonetheless make sense (and can it even be true) to say that abstract
entities exist only in space and time? My positive answers can be found
in my paper "Roman Ingarden and the Problem of Universals", but (being a
newcomer here) I have got the impression that such discussions are far
beyond what this forum has been created for. (02)
Best wishes,
Ingvar (03)
--
Ingvar Johansson
IFOMIS, Saarland University
home site: http://ifomis.org/
personal home site:
http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson/index.html (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|