Hi Pat, (01)
I know you have an irrational aversion to these topics.
>From an IT system building perspective, one needs some kind of structure to
organise the information in the system (an architecture) - so the Pat
'approach' of not having one is hardly practical, unless all you are
designing is a spreadsheet.
My and, I'm guessing, Matthew's experience is that these kinds of structures
are a useful practical device when dealing with large systems.
As you well know, they have also been studied for quite some time, and rest
on arguments more than intuitions. (02)
If you want to make some suggestion about the use of the term 'individual',
I wish you well in defending it, but I won't be holding my breath.
If you are suggesting that the terms we are using "cannot be described or
named " maybe you should re-read the literature. (03)
Chris (04)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 19 December 2012 03:37
> To: [ontolog-forum] ; Chris Partridge
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Chris Partridge wrote:
>
> > As I understand it, the issue can be seen as what series of
> > architectural choices one makes.
> >
> > There is a distinction going back to Aristotle between things that can
> > have members and things that cannot (phrase this in the way that suits
> > you - instances, predicables, etc.).
> > If you choose to make that distinction, then you may then want to
> > tighten up what kind of things cannot have members, and argue that
> > these must all be concrete (a kind of abstract object nominalism) -
another
> choice.
> > If you make this second choice, you can resolve Pat's point about
> > numbers (at least, natural numbers) with some neo-Fregean approach.
> > Or, maybe a structuralist approach such as Shapiro's.
> > If you have made these two choices then a mental shorthand for the
> > distinction might be that it rests upon a concrete-abstract
> > distinction - but (architecturally) this is a much weaker and murkier
> > distinction to base things on, so not such a solid foundation.
>
> My objection is to the very idea that these questions are in any sense
> "foundational". They are indeed obscure, hard to decide, and rest upon
very
> fragile intuitions. But they are not foundational in the sense that
anything
> important rests upon them or depends on getting them right. They are, in
fact,
> almost completely irrelevant to any matter of concern to practical
ontology
> design, and can (and should) be ignored, unless one has far too much time
to
> waste. It is not an architectural decision at all: more like a decision
about what
> color smoke to blow up the chimney.
>
> Here is one way to decide the matter: anything that can be described or
> referred to is, ipso facto, an individual. And of things that cannot be
described
> or named, we must be silent.
>
> Pat
>
>
> > So, to make sense of this I think it helps to expose the architectural
> > choices one had made - and as the discussion shows (a) we often do not
> > do this and (b) there are a myriad of choices to choose from.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> >> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
> >> Sent: 18 December 2012 22:24
> >> To: [ontolog-forum] ; David Price
> >> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Ontologies and individuals
> >>
> >>
> >> On Dec 18, 2012, at 6:13 AM, David Price wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 18 Dec 2012, at 13:28, Alexander Titov wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 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).
> >>
> >> That surely will not work. The natural number five is an individual,
> >> but
> > does not
> >> exist in space and time, even imaginary space and time. Does Moby
> >> Dick,
> > the
> >> work, exist in space and time? (Where?) Some people think that sets
> >> exist
> > in
> >> time. There is hardly any position on these debates that has not been
> >> held
> > and
> >> defended by someone.
> >>
> >> Pat
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> This depends on the metaphysics and language you've adopted. As Pat
> > said,
> >> Individual means 'member of set' in logic and has nothing to do with
> >> space
> > and
> >> time. Matthew's comments are couched in 4-dimensionalism so
> >> Individual is "Thing that exists in some possible world" and so is
> >> entirely about space
> > and
> >> time. In 4-D, a Class can be a member of a Class, yet Classes are not
> > Individuals.
> >>>
> >>> So, without couching discussions into the approach/background that
> >>> is
> > the
> >> context, even Individual is not a clearly defined term.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> As Classes are things of which Individuals are members based on some
> >> criteria so, by definition, Classes in 4D are not in space time.
> >> Classes
> > are
> >> identified by their extension, but that does not put them into
> >> space/time either.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> _________________________________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> >> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> >> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> >> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
> >> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> _________________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|