ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:05:39 -0000
Message-id: <50d0a267.0461b40a.3c7e.0c19@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Dear Alex,

 

Good question.

 

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?

MW: There already is an object that is the collection of all the space-time extensions, it is their mereological sum, and that is an individual but not a set.

MW: I think both these objects (the set and the mereological sum) are useful, but for different things. When I think about the set, I think about the properties that are common to each of its members, when I think about the mereological sum I think about the properties of the whole. So if I am interested in saying that each member has a certain weight, I use set, if I want the weight of all the collection I use the mereological sum.

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...

MW: Yes, something that exists in space and time would not have members (if you use the distinction I have made above).

 

Regards

 

Matthew West                           

Information  Junction

Tel: +44 1489 880185

Mobile: +44 750 3385279

Skype: dr.matthew.west

matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/

http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

 

This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177.

Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.

 

 



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)

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