On May 2, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Ryan Kohl wrote:
> Why wouldn't 'married man' be a universal? (01)
Looks like Werner's idea is that "defined classes" are not
universals. As if universals (relative to an ontology, I guess) have
to be primitives of the system. Or something. I guess they can make
that choice, but I'd agree with you that it makes rather more sense to
countenance both "MAN" and "MARRIED MAN" as universals and distinguish
instead between primitive universals and "complex" or "defined"
universals. (02)
> Even underBarry Smith and Pierre Grenon's definition (from
>http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/SQU.pdf)
> , a universal "is an entity with a spatiotemporal existence which is
> yet distinct from its extension (the set of its instances) at any
> given time." (page 1, 2nd paragraph). (03)
They really say that? So NATURAL NUMBER has a spatio-temporal
existence? (04)
-chris (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)
|