ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] entity: nothing

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:07:25 -0400
Message-id: <344093AA-BF1D-41EE-A24E-8380F191289D@xxxxxxxxx>
+1.    (01)

In BFO, where I work, this would make it a dependent continuant -  
can't have a hole without it being a hole in something.    (02)

I also agree that this is distinct from nothing, which isn't  
anything. Seems better to have "nothing" mean nothing, and instead  
focus on naming and characterizing the things that one tends to refer  
to when overloading the word "nothing", like holes.    (03)

-Alan    (04)

On Sep 18, 2007, at 1:33 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:    (05)

> Paola,
>
> That is the point of the discussion:
>
>> the one questrion that I am left with is whether
>> holes are entities as such, or non entities
>
> That article on the Stanford philosophy site gives a brief
> summary of the issues, and the book by Casati and Varzi goes
> into more detail.
>
> My preference is to adopt something like an Aristotelian
> form-matter combination.  According to that principle, holes
> definitely have a form, but the matter is something external
> to them -- namely some part of the boundary of an object that
> delimits their form.
>
> For typical physical objects, a boundary has a finite thickness.
> But in the limit (which is only attainable by an abstract
> mathematical object) the boundary would have zero thickness
> and hence no material content.
>
> In summary, my recommendation would be to define a hole as
> an object that has a location in space-time and a 3-dimensional
> volume, which is determined by some part of the boundary of
> an ordinary physical object.
>
> This definition accommodates some of the issues, such as
> a hole that remains in a fixed location with a stable shape
> while the matter that surrounds it may be changing (for
> example, a hole formed by the space between two branches
> of a waterfall).
>
> This does not imply that a hole is nothing.  It is more like
> a boundary than like a pure nothingness.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (07)

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