To: | "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:51:15 -0500 |
Message-id: | <p06230905c3feee557f80@[192.168.1.2]> |
At 9:33 AM -0400 3/13/08, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; Good idea to read this, but be warned it is 47 pages and does not have any examples of the axiomatizations PatH has provided in this thread to demonstrate the logical incompatibility of 3D and 4D views. Here¹s an exercise for those who are willing to dig in: try to understand what ³Pat at t² (i.e. Pat at time t) or (x at t) mean. If I were to speak as an endurantist (one who believes in
continuants) then the answer is clear and obvious. Pat is a
continuant, which needs no further explanation. His properties change
with time, so assertions about him must be made somehow with respect
to the time they are supposed to hold (typically by including a time
parameter in the relations, but other formal devices are possible, eg
making assertions relative to a temporal context, or using temporal
modal logics.) In the informal discussion, 'Pat-at-t' is simply a way
to refer to Pat at the time t, to informally indicate which time to
use when making assertions about Pat. Of course, the Pat in Pat-at-t1
and Pat-at-t2 are the same Pat; and also of course, 'Pat-at-t' doesn't
mean a 'temporal slice' of Pat, because Pat is a continuant and can't
be temporally sliced.
PatH
If you understand that, and can explain it in under five sentences, please let us know your interpretation. (Hint: it is not a time-slice of a 4D Pat). PatC Patrick Cassidy MICRA, Inc. 908-561-3416 cell: 908-565-4053 cassidy@xxxxxxxxx From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes Anyone who has been following the debate on this thread might be interested in an edited version of a similar debate on the same general topic which took place on the SUO list some time ago. It can be found here: http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/Endurantism&PerdurantismDebate2002.pdf Adam Pease, the editor, took some liberties with the ordering so the arguments are a little disjointed in a few places, but it makes most of the points fairly clearly and might be amusing to read in places. Pat -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC 40 South Alcaniz St. Pensacola FL 32502 http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections _________________________________________________________________ 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 (01) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Anthropology of Colour, Pat Hayes |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Anthropology of Colour, Barker, Sean (UK) |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate communication, redux, Patrick Cassidy |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate communication, John F. Sowa |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |