Pat, (01)
> -----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
>
> >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.
>
> 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? (02)
Do not want to get too involved in exegesis. But think DavidL's view on
scattered members of a set would be that it is pointless to tie down the
spatio-temporal extent - rather than that there is not one. Quine et al.
would take the same position (I guess) with scattered physical objects -
such as the fusion of all hydrogen atoms. One might take the same view of
the English cricket team when they have gone on holiday. (03)
>
> 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.
>
> >
> >CP>You mention numbers, but that is expanding the scope of the
> discussion.
> >Here, I agree, problems lie.
>
> 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.
>
> Pat
>
> >
> >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
> >
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.14/727 - Release Date:
> 19/03/2007 11:49
> (04)
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.14/727 - Release Date: 19/03/2007
11:49 (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)
|