|Date:||Sun, 15 Mar 2015 20:55:34 -0400|
FYI: I've added 'Endurantism and Perdurantism' to the subject-line of this thread, and including the comment by Rich below (because I seem to be getting separate emails). For those responding further, I encourage responding with that addition in the subject for reference and consistency with the topic.
You wrote: [MW>] The problem with combining endurantism with a process (or purdurantist) approach is that endurantism insists that physical objects wholly exist at each point in time and pass through time, which means that in particular that they do not have temporal parts. On the other hand a process/purdurantist ontology has physical objects extended in time (like processes) and hence they have temporal parts. Overcoming that contradiction is non-trivial without actually changing sides, and the choice between them is one of the core commitments one has to make.
You've described traditional views of perdurantism, and also what is often presented as a contradiction. The idea is to develop other more accurate conceptions of perdurantism/endurantism or some amalgam of the two seemingly opposing views. I doubt there is reason to make the distinction dogma, and from my experience it seems it's been accepted as such.
Now, in philosophy, some have questioned the wholly-present aspect, leading to a view according to which processes are persisting, wholly-present yet ongoing or unfolding (in no temporally-extended sense) entities (See Rowland Stout). In the applied side, as Galton et al. (Waterfall paper) have said "objects are points of stability" in virtue of processes they or their parts participate in. In my view, these are some steps to a more accurate ontological description of existents.
I believe traditional endurantism and perdurantism are too rigid and narrow in themselves, each picking out aspects of the world, but are at least two sides to the same coin in describing existents. If some are interested in collaborating on a paper--ideally funded as it is important in my circumstances--on these topics, contact me privately. As I said, I have one, but the area needs more work.
Rich Cooper wrote:
It seems to me that combining the two - object properties and process properties - would be more realistic than separating them. It has been common practice to separate them for so long we should at least review the reasons why we don't, in practice, put them together.
In games, the objects go through state changes and also appear to perform actions. Those would certainly be natural examples we could discuss it that way. Starships, Klingons, Martians, ray weapons, shields, sick bay, Captain Kirk, Scotty, the whole cast, the Conn, and all those objects could be used as examples.
But isn't the idea to construct "Scriptive" ontologies, i.e., task schedules, as stored or calculated, for each object? One purpose of the historic separation was for partitioning the program, from the data tables, so that the software could be generalized for use in wider application domains. But that separation changes the design to ensure that an API for the scheduler would be distinct from an API to the script tables manager - SQL or NoSQL. Separating the two subsystems over the years has gradually made each subsystem more general, more efficient at its subtask, and more complete in its treatment of the combined System, both software and tables.
HTML is an example of scripted layout, and there is an ontology of objects and operations that can be extracted from the various verbs and nouns in HTML pages. HTML also separates out the verb parts from the declarative parts, and the latest version is syntactically closed, so it's hierarchical and very easy to parse. Yet it still maintains the separation of objects from processes. Why is that the choice made instead of putting them together? What would be gained or lost by integrating them?
Rich Cooper,Rich Cooper,
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ 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>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Some Comments on Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Ontologies., Ravi Sharma|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] SME (subject matter experts) and Ontology developement - principle? - Ethics?, John F Sowa|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] Some Comments on Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Ontologies., Thomas Johnston|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some Comments on Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Ontologies, Matthew West|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|