On Feb 21, 2009, at 7:23 AM, Ali Hashemi wrote: Hello again,
Can someone point me to discussion / papers which outline the irreconcilable(?) differences between these two paradigms.
Some years ago, Adam Pease edited a long series of email debates on this issue into a semi-readable form. I archived the result, which is available here:
It may be amusing reading for some readers.
My (semi)naive impression is that each approach considers a set of information as a given, while another requires that it be explicated.
Not sure if I follow what you are saying, but I don't think it is this simple. It seems like a relatively straightforward affair to keep track of what is needed to facilitate adequate, two-way translation between each approach.
Strictly speaking, one is more general than the other; but ignoring this detail, yes of course one can formally translate between them. At a purely formal level, the entire debate can be summarized as being about where to put the time parameter: as a relational argument or as a parameter on individuals. But the thorn, as you put it, is ontological: it is that for each participant, the translation into the other ontology introduces entities which they believe to be impossible, or incoherent, or unintuitive, or otherwise not suitable for human use in public.
Pat
------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
|