Dear Pat, (01)
> > Dear Pat,
> >
> > That depends on how you define individual (of course).
>
> I had thought that there was a starting point here in which the force
> of being an individual was that one does not have instances or
> exemplars (or 'members'), so I have been using this idea for making
> intuitive judgements of plausibility, rather than any formal
> definition. This has nothing at all to do with being in space and time. (02)
MW: Someone (not me) proposed that, and I have been trying to say that
whilst what I mean by a individual does not have members, that does not mean
that everything that does not have members is an individual (e.g. the null
set) and then you started shouting. (03)
MW: But let's back up a bit, because Chris mentioned individual as a
foundational object, and for what I mean, what I mean by individual is not
really that either. So if I look at what I see (in my scheme of things, your
mileage may vary) as foundational objects, my list would be:
- set/class - things for which the membership/instance of relationship is
valid)
- spatio-temporal extent - things for which mereotopological relationships
are valid. A spatio-temporal extent is a spatio-temporal part of (classical
mereology) some possible world.
- relationship - what one thing has to do with another (not to be confused
with relations that are mathematical structures often used to represent
relationships - or more properly classes of relationship).
- number - things for which mathematical operators are valid. (04)
You could make an abstract/concrete divide between spatio-temporal extents
and the rest (and I have in models) but I would agree that is not
foundational and can be abandoned without losing anything. (05)
For me an individual is a kind of spatio-temporal extent. Specifically it is
the whole of the life (not to be confused with lifecycle) of some object of
interest in some possible world, e.g. me, the computer I am typing on, the
singing of a song, Moby Dick. This contrasts with a state of individual
which is a temporal part (the whole spatially, but a part temporally) of
some individual (again classical mereology, so an individual is a subtype of
state of individual). So me today, a singing of the first verse of a song,
etc are states of individual. (06)
I'm not sure how one can define an individual in this sense at a logical
level, in particular, what makes something an individual rather than just
the background mish-mash. (If you have some suggestions I would appreciate
them). But these are undoubtedly important things, and we seem to know them
when we see them. (07)
>
> >
> >>>>> 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.
> >
> > MW: I agree that the natural number five is not a set, and that it is
> > also not a spatio-temporal extent, but that would not make it an
> > individual, as I would define it, but an abstract object.
>
> Well, frankly, just having a "definition" plucked out of the air isn't
> very interesting. WHY do you want to define "individual" in this way?
> Is this definition supposed to be an exegesis of some idea of
> individuality that has some kind of intellectual pedigree, or do you
> have some other motivation for it? I can't see any reason why an
> abstract object should not be called an individual. If five isn't a set
> and has no instances but isnt an individual, what (kind of thing) is
> it? And what about things that (plausibly) exist in time but not in
> space, like Moby Dick? Are they half-individuals, by your lights? (08)
MW: Of course you can if you wish to, but by Humpty Dumpty you won't be
using the word with the meaning I intend. (09)
Regards (010)
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/ (011)
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. (012)
>
> Pat
>
>
> > But I will agree that there is a
> > problem at this level of abstraction about what words to use for what
> > things, and it is obviously easy for this to lead to confusion.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|