Pat Hayes schrieb:
>>
>> 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.
>
> I think that a related question might be within scope, however: is it
> any USE to say that abstract entities exist in space and time? Does
> that viewpoint in any way simplify ontology writing, or bring together
> disparate ways of expressing something into a single framework, or
> facilitate interoperation?
In philosophical ontology it is simply a question one has to try to
answer; and if it is true that even abstract entities exist in space and
time, then very much has been brought "into a single framework". Whether
or not it can simplify ontology writing in your sense, I don't know; and
I have never pretended to know.
> Or, on the contrary, does it lead to the need for artificial
> work-arounds to avoid unfortunate inconsistencies, or require axiom
> writers to use a certain artificial discipline, hence probably leading
> to errors, etc.? Or (like most philosophically motivated ontological
> ideas) does it do both, so have both advantages and disadvantages?
>
> BTW, I agree it makes sense to put everything in space and time. (If
> numbers exist at all, surely they exist *now*.) Which is fortunate for
> me, being a dyed-in-the-wool nominalist who doesn't even believe that
> numbers are real :-) I wouldn't suggest that a user community
> subscribe to my peculiar philosophy, however, and I see the pragmatic
> advantages of Platonism, and am even willing to use modal language,
> with of course the private perspective that it is all completely
> fictional.
BTW: there is not just the opposition between nominalism and Platonism.
Like you (but unlike Platonists), I think that everything exists in
space and time; unlike you (but like Platonists) I think that there are
abstract entities; such a position is a form of Aristotelianism or
immanent realism. (01)
/Ingvar (02)
--
Ingvar Johansson
IFOMIS, Saarland University
home site: http://ifomis.org/
personal home site:
http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson/index.html (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|