Once again, doesn't the entire conversation boil down to the definitions of
employee and person? (01)
Duane (02)
On 3/19/07 7:24 AM, "matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx" <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: (03)
> Dear John,
>
>
>> MW> This is also what we now do with a 4-dimensionalist
>>> approach. However, it is this approach that also demonstrates,
>>> as I explained to Duane that employee is not a subtype of
>>> person, taking person as the person-for-the-whole-of-their-life.
>>
>> Subtype has a very clear and simple definition: X < Y
>> means that every instance of X is an instance of Y.
>
> MW: I agree of course.
>>
>> This is true in a 3-D version and in a 4-D version. When a
>> person stops being an employee, there is no employee. But
>> as long as a person is an employee, that employee is one
>> and the same individual as that person.
>
> MW: Under 4 dimensionalism with extensionalism, identity is based
> on being the same spatio-temporal extent. So Matthew West the
> employee of Shell is only the same thing as Matthew West the person
> if Matthew West is an employee of Shell for the whole of his life.
>
> MW: Matthew West the employee is a temporal part of Matthew West
> the person, but that does not make them the same thing, it only
> means there is a temporal whole-part relationship between them.
>>
>> MW> Let us look at a couple of possibilities here:
>>
>> This definition covers every case. It is true in a 3-D
>> version and in a 4-D version. It implies that the entire
>> spatiotemporal extent of Employee is included in the
>> spatiotemporal extent of Person.
>
> MW: No it does not. Being a temporal part of a person implies
> this, but subtype/supertype requires that instances of the subtype
> are instances of the supertype. The employee instance is not
> a person-for-the-whole-of-their-life, so employee is not a subtype
> of person.
>
> MW: I accept that under 3 dimensionalism employee is a subtype of
> person, because the person is wholly present at each point in time.
> You then ahve to temporally index what is going on. In my view a
> great strength of 4-dimensioalism is that it requires a stronger
> approach to temporality that makes these differences more explicit.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
--
**********************************************************
Sr. Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc. *
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee *
Blog: http://technoracle.blogspot.com *
Music: http://www.mix2r.com/audio/by/artist/duane_nickull*
********************************************************** (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|