Chris, (01)
I'm using the word 'orthogonal' in the metaphorical sense that
two assumptions are independent of one another: neither one
implies nor contradicts the other. (02)
JFS>> The assumption of property instances is orthogonal to the
>> assumption of a 4-D ontology. (03)
CP> How do you arrive at this conclusion? It does not seem obvious
> to me. (04)
I believe that Matthew is making the implicit assumption that
everything that exists can be identified with some space-time
extent. That assumption is inconsistent with tropes or
property instances. But it does not follow from the assumption
of either a 3-D or a 4-D ontology. (05)
CP> ... it is rather difficult to be an extensionalist and not
> be 4D. (06)
I'll agree that it is easier to define more kinds of entities
with 4-D extensional definitions, but some clever 3-D extionalists
could probably find equivalent ways. (07)
In any case, I would not advocate an extentional position,
either 3-D or 4-D. Intentions (with a T) should be distinguished
from intensions (with an S), but you can't define any kind of
beliefs, desires, and intentions without intensional definitions. (08)
And without intentions, you can't define such things as contracts,
promises, or anything that depends on them, such as money or
businesses that hope to earn money. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (011)
|