[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some Comments on

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 20:40:44 +0100
Message-id: <00ad01d06d7c$e9b0ba30$bd122e90$@gmail.com>
Dear John,    (01)

> There is nothing artificial about dissectivity. It is just a property 
> of types to be either dissective or non-dissective (and I guess 
> possibly a-dissective).    (02)

When I used the word 'artificial', I meant that the phrase "a property of
types" is taken from some ontology (1c), not from ordinary language (1b).
Nothing in the universe (1a) could be truly dissective in an absolute sense.
(The only exception might be a perfect vacuum, but it's not clear whether a
perfect vacuum is possible in 1a.)
[MW>] Do you mean that there are limits to dissectivity? E.g. the limit to
the dissectivity of sand is one grain of sand. However, it is commonly
understood that there is some smaller type that the dissective type is a
simple aggregate of the members (indeed that might be a better way to talk
about the phenomenon).    (03)

That word 'type' is critical for your reply to Pat:    (04)

> I think what [Pat is] saying is that you can state facts in a neutral 
> way that would allow them to be imported and reasoned over by either 
> an ontology that was endurantist or perdurantist, and this gives you 
> an easy way to federate a group of ontologies.    (05)

If you assume a strict typing system, 
[MW>] I'm not sure what you mean by this. That things must have a type, or
can only have one type, or ...
the way you classify something causes it to have certain "properties of
types".  Pat was proposing a typeless logic that allows you to refer to
something without saying which type it may belong to.
[MW>] OK. So how to you refer to a car without saying it is a car? I'm
clearly missing something.    (06)

In a typeless logic (such as Common Logic) you can, if you wish, state the
same assumptions that are implicit in the type definitions.
But the typeless logic gives you the option of not making those assumptions.
[MW>] I can see that you can derive a type from the properties and
relationships of an object. So I can record that I have an object with an
engine, 4 wheels, 6 seats, a fuel tank etc. But I still needed the types of
the parts to do that. So I am not too sure how much further I am.    (07)

> I find it useful to learn about and use the specialist language of an 
> area when I stray onto their territory.    (08)

I certainly agree.  But I doubt that the specialists you were talking to
used the terms 'dissectivity' and 'property of types'.
[MW>] Well we are in an area (upper ontologies) where the philosophers are
the experts. So yes, I do expect them to use those terms.    (09)

Regards    (010)

Matthew West
+44 750 338 5279    (011)

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    (012)

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