Pat, (01)
>CP>I am not sure where you see the disadvantages of the DavidL position I
>described are. He is saying that if the instances are spatio-temporal,
isn't
>there some sense in which the set of them are as well. (02)
PH>Well, I can see a lot of problems with this. If
you believe, for example, that all spatiotemporal
entities are in some sense physical, you will get
into trouble. (03)
By physical do you mean something more than material? Not sure what problems
ensue - could you elaborate. (04)
PH>Or if someone else believes this
and bases *their* ontology on it, and then you
try to work with them. Many high-level frameworks
make the spatiotemporal/abstract distinction very
high up, so get into difficulties when it is
denied. And DavidL's position as I understand it
is that this is so when the members are
spatiotemporally close: but what of highly
scattered examples, such as the set of all the
hydrogen atoms? (05)
Ah, I think we are talking about different things here.
If you are saying that a lot of existing ontologies have X therefore we need
to have something that can work with X - I can see the argument.
My point is rather that if 'abstract' is a bit difficult to get a clear cut
picture of - then people using it will end up with different classifications
- making things difficult to reconcile. My tactic would be to just take
abstract out of the hierarchy - not sure what kind of problems this would
cause. (06)
Regards,
Chris (07)
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 19 March 2007 17:02
To: Chris Partridge
Cc: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL (08)
>Pat,
>
>Comments below.
>
>Chris
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
>Sent: 19 March 2007 15:04
>To: Ingvar Johansson
>Cc: [ontolog-forum]
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL
>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>
>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? 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?
>
>CP>I think DavidL's point was rather that the notion of abstract is
>flawed/odd/whatever - and trying to work with it can lead to the problems
>you note above.
>
>CP>I am not sure where you see the disadvantages of the DavidL position I
>described are. He is saying that if the instances are spatio-temporal,
isn't
>there some sense in which the set of them are as well. (09)
Well, I can see a lot of problems with this. If
you believe, for example, that all spatiotemporal
entities are in some sense physical, you will get
into trouble. Or if someone else believes this
and bases *their* ontology on it, and then you
try to work with them. Many high-level frameworks
make the spatiotemporal/abstract distinction very
high up, so get into difficulties when it is
denied. And DavidL's position as I understand it
is that this is so when the members are
spatiotemporally close: but what of highly
scattered examples, such as the set of all the
hydrogen atoms? (010)
Although I think its philosophically
fiction-talk, I actually prefer to have a
clear-cut abstract/spatiotemporal distinction and
firmly relegate all mathematically described
collections to the former category. Its just
easier to remember, basically. If you prefer,
treat my 'abstract' as a spatiotemporal category
in your ontology: we will be able to communicate
without too much trouble. (011)
>
>CP>You mention numbers, but that is expanding the scope of the discussion.
>Here, I agree, problems lie. (012)
Numbers (natural numbers if you like) are my
paradigm abstract/platonic entities; they are
some of the very few such abstracta that I can
form any coherent intuitions about. (013)
Pat (014)
>
>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.
>
>Pat
>
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>Ingvar
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ingvar Johansson
>>IFOMIS, Saarland University
>> home site: http://ifomis.org/
>> personal home site:
>> http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson/index.html
>>
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>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
>>
>
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
>40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
>phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
> (015)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|