[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Two ontologies that are inconsistent but bothneeded

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:42:50 -0400
Message-id: <46734E2A.8020305@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Paola,    (01)

Thank you for citing that paper by Riichiro Mizoguchi:    (02)

http://www.ei.sanken.osaka-u.ac.jp/pub/miz/Solution_to_the_Continuant.pdf    (03)

Following is his definition of continuant:    (04)

 > My personal solution to this long-lasting debate would be
 > a revolutionary idea that
 >     Continuant is a role in the context of process.    (05)

My only comment is that I wouldn't consider it revolutionary.
Whitehead made that proposal over 75 years ago, and it is the
best definition from the point of view of modern physics.    (06)

There are, however, people who take the opposite view that
continuants are primitive, and processes are made up of
interacting continuants.    (07)

At the level of human sense organs, either view would lead
to largely indistinguishable equivalent descriptions.  But
in order to have a consistent view of everything from the
microscopic level to the cosmos, physics tips the balance.    (08)

As Whitehead observed, what we call objects are stable
patterns in the flux.    (09)

John    (010)

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    (011)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>