On 2/7/2011 3:09 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> We can have our 4D cake, and eat it also in 3D+1 practice, with a few
> transformation calculations thrown in for the philosophers. (01)
Pat H., Matthew W., and Chris P. have been promoting a 4D
representation for its computational regularity and simplicity,
not for its philosophical niceties. (02)
Alfred North Whitehead was a mathematician, who remarked that the
first time he ever entered a classroom on philosophy was when he
retired in the UK and joined the philosophy department at Harvard. (03)
I like a 4D representation for the same reasons as the above,
*and* because it is compatible with Whitehead's ontology --
which is one of the few that is capable of bridging the gap
between science (at the level of relativity and quantum mechanics)
and ordinary human thought and language. (04)
But to do the mapping to ordinary language, it's important
to be flexible, because people frequently move from one
way of talking to another, depending on the context and
point of view. That is why I like to have a general 4D
ontology as a foundation -- it has the simplest mappings
to and from a wider variety of other representations. (05)
John (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)
|