Pat, (01)
> >>
> >> The assumption of property instances is orthogonal to the
> >> assumption of a 4-D ontology.
> >
> > How do you arrive at this conclusion? It does not seem obvious to me.
>
> Seems obvious to me. How do you see them as being related?
> (02)
Isn't there some logical mistake here?
JS> Conclusion X
CP> Not obvious how you arrived at conclusion X
PH> X is obvious, how do you prove not X? (03)
In other words, I do not see where I make any claims about X or not X. (04)
> >
> >> In other discussions, you have consistently argued for an ontology
> >> that is strictly extensional. That is also an assumption that is
> >> orthogonal to the 3-D vs. 4-D viewpoint.
> >>
> >
> > Are you sure orthogonal is the right word here?
> > As far as I can tell (and others say the same) the views are
> > interestingly
> > intertwined. So, for example, it is rather difficult to be an
> > extensionalist
> > and not be 4D. Orthogonal seems to imply that there is no kind of
> > dependence
> > between the two.
>
> Indeed; and there is not. Of course it is possible to be a 3-d
> extensionalist. You believe in continuants, and you say that two
> continuants which share the same 3-d extension at every point of their
> common life, are identical. (05)
Not quite the traditional definition of extensionalism. But illustrates my
point that it is difficult - but not impossible. (06)
To be a 4-d nonextensionalist is also
> easy, I am one myself. I believe there is a clear distinction between
> a plastic molded object, such as the 5-cent buddha on my desk, and the
> plastic from which it is composed, even though they share exactly the
> same 4-D extent (the plastic having itself formed by catalysis during
> the molding process). (07)
Ok, but do you have any criteria for identity or difference to back up your
belief they are different. (08)
>
> I am puzzled as to how to even manage to see any relationship between
> the two topics (3 vs 4-D and extensionalism vs. not) (09)
It is discussed in the literature, so makes no sense to rehearse it (badly)
here. I would recommend Sider on this (as, I believe, you have cited him
before).
And, JohnS's response for confirmation that others are less puzzled. (010)
>
> Pat H.
> (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|