Dear Matthew,
I would like to ask a few questions to understand you better:
MW:
Someone mentioned that an individual is something that does not have
members (in the sense of a set having members) and that is close to what
I would mean, but that would make the null set an individual, so it is
not quite adequate. My definition of individual is something that exists
in space and time. I am not a set (or class or type or kind or sort
etc) nor is my car or this email. Nor is Sherlock Holmes to give a more
difficult example. All these things can be placed in space and time
(even if it is imaginary space and time) . On the other hand,
sets/classes/types are generally considered to exist outside space and
time.
I understand that a 'main dichotomy' between an individual and a
set/class/type is - existence in space and time (rather than having or
not having members).
MW: On the other hand,
sets/classes/types are generally considered to exist outside space and
time.
Can we consider opposite - sets/classes/types do exist within space and
time as well? For example, as a collection/set of space and time
extensions of all their members?
What will happen if the criteria is joined: 'does not have members' and
'exists in space and time'? Not sure if it is better... We have now
another (at least three) cases to think about...
Regards,
Alex
|
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|