On May 3, 2008, at 12:23 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> On May 2, 2008, at 4:23 PM, Christopher Menzel wrote:
>>> Even under Barry Smith and Pierre Grenon's definition (from
>>> , 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).
>> They really say that? So NATURAL NUMBER has a spatio-temporal
> No, NATURAL NUMBER, isn't admitted in to their ontologies. At least
> not yet. (01)
Or ever -- that would require removing the "spatiotemporal existence"
condition, right? So if NATURAL NUMBER might at some point be
admitted, then at some point they will have to remove said condition.
But then why is it even there in the first place? (02)
I have to say, I find the the "spatiotemporal existence" condition in
a definition of "universal" utterly baffling. Why build such a strong
philosophical prejudice into the entire framework from the git-go?
Barry and Pierre, are you *that* certain of your insight into
reality's Ultimate Nature? (03)
> (not endorsing that, just pointing out that the inconsistency you
> suggest doesn't happen). (04)
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 (07)