Dear Pat, (01)
<snip>
> > Pat
> > Hayes cannot have members, whereas the class of Welshmen can and
> does.
>
> It is natural at first blush, but it gets quite hard to keep it up for
> an extended length of time. For example, one way to reconcile the
> temporal fights is to introduce the notion of a series of time-
> snapshots of a 4D entity, this being the nearest thing in the 4D world
> to a 3D continuant. If you do that to (the 4-D) Pat Hayes, then I
> become the set of my instantaneous snapshots. Now, I am quite happy to
> be thought of this way, and it is sometimes very useful. But if we
> have a logically rigid distinction between things with members and
> things without, then this violates a fundamental partitioning of the
> universe. LIke the continuant/occurrent distinction, this dichotomy
> seems natural but in fact just gets in the way when one gets down to
> serious ontology engineering. One of the great merits of the CL
> absolute type freedom is that it imposes no a priori logical obstacles
> to such re-conceptualizations of entities. (02)
[MW] Whilst acknowledging of course that the set of your 4D slices is a
valid object, I would have hoped you would have seen yourself as the
aggregate (and hence still a 4D extent) of them rather than as an abstract
set. (03)
Regards (04)
Matthew West
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (05)
>
> Pat (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|