Dear John, (01)
Pat took the words out of my mouth. (02)
> >MW> 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.
> >Nonetheless, it is always true in both 3-D and 4-D models
> >that every instant of time when MW is an employee, MW is
> >also a person. Therefore, Employee < Person.
> No, that doesn't follow at all. We are quantifying over 4-d entities,
> ie 'slices' of a 'history-worm' (using a commonly used way of
> ridiculing this POV) which I will write by pairing a name with a
> time-interval, eg [PatH, 1997-2007]. That is not a person, it is a
> temporal part of a person. The actual person, Pat Hayes, is [PatH,
> (lifetimeOf PatH)], which I will not tempt fate by giving a numerical
> form for. OK, now, suppose that I was an employee of the State of
> Illinois from 1994 to 1999, at which time I left to come to Florida.
> Then [PatH, 1994-1999] is an Employee and a temporal part of a
> Person, to wit [PatH, (lifetimeOf PatH)]. It is not a Person. So
> forall x Employee(x) implies Person(x)
> is false: in fact, this is a counterexample. So Employee is
> not < Person.
> >MW> The employee instance is not a
> >Of course. But every employee instance is a part of the person
> >instance. That is exactly what is implied by Employee < Person.
> Your earlier explanation of < didn't mention anything about parts. On
> the face of it, that seems to be about employees and people. Usually,
> an employee is an instance of a temporal part of a person, not of a
> whole person (someone born into servitude might be the only exception
> I can think of). All speaking in 4-d language here, of course. (03)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)