ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology

 To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" "Chris Partridge" Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:41:59 -0000 <00b201c98c67\$aa45a1a0\$fed0e4e0\$@net>
 ```PatH,    (01) Last time you raised the question of numbers, and I responded, Chris Menzel told me off for raising something NOT relevant. Note to ChrisM - PatH raised this.    (02) > > 1. Are there certain things like e.g. numbers and possible worlds? > > > > 2. Are they abstract or concrete? > > > > Even the first may be controversial, but even if you agree that > > these things > > exist, whether they are considered abstract or not is a different > > question > > (and arguably more controversial). > > Whether they exist or not, I think you have to say that numbers are > not concrete. You can't weigh seven. >    (03) As I think you must know there is a Fregean concept of number (where 2 is the set of all sets with two members). This Fregean proposal has modern supporters - e.g. Crispin Wright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Wright .    (04) There is debate about whether sets are abstract - David Lewis asks why we cannot say the set of cars in the car park is located in the car park - and if it is located, it cannot be abstract. Hence, there is an account of numbers that says they are not abstract.    (05) There seems to me to be gap between the mathematician's notion of number and the common sense (or engineer's) notion. For historical reasons, mathematicians wanted mathematics to be devoid of ontological commitment. So, if I say there are four books on the table - how this four relates to the (set of?) books is unclear. (Ditto, the 4lb of apples on the table.) Assume there is an abstract thing that is the number four - how does it get related to the books/apples? Hope you see the problem. Note: this is simple for the Fregean. It seems to me that engineers would be happier with a Fregean approach for counting and weighing.    (06) Maybe one cannot practically weigh seven (or locate it - as it is far too scattered). But similar problems occur for things like the mereological sum of all milk (or gold, or water). These are also too scattered, but seem to me irredeemably concrete.    (07) Chris    (08) _________________________________________________________________ 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    (09) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Александр Шкотин Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Matthew West Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Rich Cooper Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Rich Cooper Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Matthew West Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Matthew West Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Chris Partridge <= Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Christopher Menzel [ontolog-forum] (no subject), Chris Partridge Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Rich Cooper Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Azamat Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Rich Cooper Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, John F. Sowa [ontolog-forum] (no subject), Chris Partridge Re: [ontolog-forum] Possible Worlds, John F. Sowa