That's why I mentioned mereotopology. It's just one more tool. And there are
indeed theories of granular partitions:
(01)
Bittner, Thomas; Barry Smith. 2001. A unified theory of granularity, vagueness
and approximation. In: Proc. of the 1st Workshop on Spatial Vagueness,
Uncertainty, and Granularity (SVUG01).
http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~bittner/BittnerSmithSVUG01.pdf.
(02)
Bittner, Thomas; Barry Smith; Maureen Donnelly. 2007. The Logic of Systems of
Granular Partitions. Manuscript.
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/BittnerSmithDonnelly.pdf.
(03)
Bittner, Thomas, and Barry Smith. 2003. A Theory of Granular Partitions. In:
Foundations of Geographic Information Science, M. Duckham, M. F. Goodchild and
M. F. Worboys, eds., London: Taylor & Francis Books, 2003, 117-151.
(04)
Thanks,
Leo
(05)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avril Styrman
>Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:42 PM
>To: [ontolog-forum] ; Rich Cooper
>Cc: '[ontolog-forum] '
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>
>Hi,
>
>discrete mereology is the simplest flat collection theory. I inform
>the list of a new article by Rom Harré: Behind the mereological
>fallacy. Philosophy, 87(341):329–352, 2012.
>
>According to Harre p351-2 mereology’s lack of the ability to model
>contexts has led to mereological fallacies, where contexts are
>confusingly mixed:
>“the brain is not a part of a person in the way that a grain of sand
>is part of a beach. It is part of a person’s body and a person’s body
>is not a part of that person in the relevant sense.” In contrast, when
>a granular theory is used as a foundation of ‘part’, this
>automatically makes the user to think more
>carefully about the context under which the term ‘part’ is used: some
>parts are flat, some are granular.
>
>Granular theories of course do not solve all problems, but they are an
>advancement.
>
>-Avril
>
>
>
>
>
>Quoting "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> John Sowa wrote:
>>
>> The fundamental principle is that there is a
>> reason for every
>>
>> distinction. Those reasons are fundamental to
>> ontology. Mereology
>>
>> is useful. But the hope that it might provide
>> "objective" criteria
>>
>> for ontology is a fantasy -- an extremely
>> *misleading* fantasy.
>>
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed; it is the observer who decides what
>> distinctions to apply, and that makes the
>> observer's subjective ontology the appropriate one
>> to use, not some so-called "objective" ontology.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even worse, no two people use exactly the same
>> ontology, which is one of those things that make
>> interpersonal communications so very faulty.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Rich
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Rich Cooper
>>
>> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>>
>> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>>
>> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of John F Sowa
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 7:29 AM
>> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic
>> Semantic Structures
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/26/2012 9:16 AM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
>>
>>> Then you agree with the author of the second
>> paper?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Robinson, Edward Heath. 2012. Reexamining fiat,
>> bona fide
>>
>>> and force dynamic boundaries for geopolitical
>> entities and
>>
>>> their placement in DOLCE. Applied Ontology 7
>> (2012),
>>
>>> pp. 93-108, DOI 10.3233/AO-2012-0103, IOS Press.
>>
>>
>>
>> I haven't had a chance to read that paper. But I
>> objected to the
>>
>> distinction of fiat vs. natural boundaries as soon
>> as it was published.
>>
>>
>>
>> In physics, everything is continuous. Some
>> gradients are sharper
>>
>> than others, but nothing in nature has a clearly
>> defined or definable
>>
>> 0-thickness boundary.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just consider the human body. The boundary changes
>> every time somebody
>>
>> gets a hair cut, clips fingernails, takes a bath,
>> puts on make-up,
>>
>> removes contact lenses, or sheds a few skin cells.
>> For legal purposes,
>>
>> even clothing is considered within the body's
>> boundary.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you admit clothing, you have to ask about the
>> difference between
>>
>> a wallet in somebody's pocket vs. a purse carried
>> outside the boundary
>>
>> of the clothing. What about a necklace that might
>> be partly under
>>
>> the clothing and partly outside? What about a
>> backpack? If you admit
>>
>> a backpack, what about a suitcase that somebody is
>> carrying. If you
>>
>> admit that, what about a cane? Crutches? A
>> walker? A wheelchair?
>>
>> A seeing-eye dog?
>>
>>
>>
>> The fundamental principle is that there is a
>> reason for every
>>
>> distinction. Those reasons are fundamental to
>> ontology. Mereology
>>
>> is useful. But the hope that it might provide
>> "objective" criteria
>>
>> for ontology is a fantasy -- an extremely
>> *misleading* fantasy.
>>
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> _______________
>>
>> Message Archives:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>>
>> Config Subscr:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
>> orum/
>>
>> 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?WikiHomePa
>> ge#nid1J
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Avril Styrman
>+358 40 7000 589
>
>
>___________________________________________________________
>______
>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
>
(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 (07)
|