[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping

To: <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:10:19 -0400
Message-id: <01aa01cac50a$072105f0$156311d0$@com>
Regarding diachronic identity:    (01)

> Matthew West wrote:
> > This falls short for me.
> > Translations to CLIF using the above ontology:
> >> at t1, Kermit egg.
> >
> >>    (exists (p t1) (and (namedEntity p "Kermit") (egg p) (coord 4
> t1)))
> >
> >> at t2, Kermit tadpole
> >
> >>    (exists (p t2) (and (namedEntity p "Kermit") (tadpole p) (coord 4
> > t2))).
> >
> >> at t3, Kermit frog.
> >
> >>    (exists (p t3) (and (namedEntity p "Kermit") (frog p) (coord 4
> t3)))
> >
> >> I claim that these observations can be used in either a 3D or a 4D
> theory. Furthermore, I claim that any predictions made by either of those
> theories that can be expressed in terms of the above ontology will not
> conflict with any predictions made by the other theory that are similarly
> restricted.
> > MW: Yes, but they are not terribly useful. What I am missing is
> whether these observations are about the same  egg/frogspawn/frog or
> different ones that just happen to be named Kermit.
> They do not state that the things named Kermit are the same.
> > MW: What I would expect to see is some relation that affirmed this.
> For 3D this would be some identity relation and for 4D this would be a
> temporal whole/part relation. I'm not quite sure how you make a relation
> ambiguous enough that it could be either.
> A relation could be defined to express this, but not given a semantics
> in the 3D-4D agnostic world.  It would be given different semantics in
> each theory.
>    (02)

I am unclear why not.  If you define a relation: "isTheSameIndividualAs" it
Relate a particular instance of endurant at all times, and also relate all
time slices of a 4D object.  What problem do you see?    (03)

Pat    (04)

PS - Pat Hayes has already (in this forum) presented a set of axioms
relating 3D and 4D objects - is this discussion due to some inadequacy of
that formulation?    (05)

Patrick Cassidy
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx    (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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>