ontolog-forum
[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: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 17:55:06 +0100
Message-id: <002901d06e2e$f06890c0$d139b240$@gmail.com>
Dear John,
Yes of course, and I agree a logic that allows us to say things like this is
a good thing, but...    (01)

On 4/2/2015 3:40 PM, Matthew West wrote:
> So how do you refer to a car without saying it is a car?    (02)

Just say in English (or its translation to FOL):    (03)

    There is an x.
[MW>] Just saying this means I have no idea at all what it is. It could be a
pork pie.    (04)

If you want to say more, add    (05)

    x has four wheels; x has a cabin that can hold from 1 to 8
    people; one of them is a driver; the driver can control
    the way x moves.
[MW>] This hardly helps either. Instead of one type, I now count four (or
more depending on exactly what you think type includes). Hardly progress.    (06)

You can also, if you wish, say the following, but without assuming any fixed
definition for the term 'car':    (07)

   x is car.    (08)

The critical distinction is in the restrictions implied by the system of
logic and ontology.  
[MW>] Right. Now this is closer to what I was expecting. That you retain the
name, but drop the axioms when you translate between different ontologies.
If you have a very tightly restricted logic, it's impossible to say
"driverless car".
[MW>] Again right, and this points to the problem of this approach, which is
how you identify what you mean so that it still has the same membership (in
the real world) across ontologies with different foundations.    (09)

With a less restricted logic, you can say anything you like.
If it causes a contradiction, you just delete one or more axioms
-- in this case, the axiom that a moving car shall have a driver.
[MW>] Sure. But there is also a problem that sometimes definitions just are
inconsistent. So in the UK 3 wheeled cars were (at one time at least)
classified as motorcycles with sidecars. I doubt many other countries
defined car to exclude 3 wheelers.    (010)

Regards    (011)

Matthew West
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
+44 750 338 5279    (012)



John    (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)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (015)

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