Chris, (01)
The term 'Cambridge property' was introduced by Peter Geach in the
derisive phrase "mere Cambridge property" without giving a definition.
Barry Miller (in the Stanford page you cited) gave a definition: (02)
A Cambridge property is the referent either of a relational
predicate or of a purely formal predicate. (03)
That's fairly clear, but it's at the level of Quine's dictum:
"To be is to be the value of a quantified variable." (04)
I use the term 'role type' for a very widely used type of word
or concept that everybody uses daily: (05)
Author, Player, Spouse, Buyer, Seller, Pet, Employee, Manager,
Contractor, Pilot, Driver, Mathematician, Brother, Sister,
Student, Weed, Nuisance, Tool, Prize, Reward, Favor, Example... (06)
CP> However, I can easily give an extensional definition of them
> - if the role of the definition is to capture the extension... (07)
The primary role of a definition is to tell people how to use
the term in a way other people will understand. None of those
words can be defined by observable properties of the individual.
The same plant, for example, could be a weed or a delicacy,
depending on somebody's intention. (08)
Brother and Sister are two of the easiest to define, but note
that there may be only one person in the world who actually
observed the relevant conditions, and you have to take her word
for it. The 4-D proponents usually reply "Yes, but somewhere
in that vast infinity of space and time, the relevant events
really do exist." (09)
CP> "For example, if I buy a car, the car does not change in any
> observable way." One can, of course, observe the process of
> buying. (010)
How do you observe it? By watching someone go to a car dealer
and negotiate? By watching the buyer go to an auction and
raise a hand at the appropriate moment? By seeing somebody
typing away at a browser connected to the Internet? Even
if you saw those events, how would you know that the buyer
didn't sell the car or the repo man didn't tow it away? (011)
Since car ownership is registered by the government, there are
more reliable methods than observing the act of buying. But
very few things anybody owns are ever registered in that way. (012)
For things other than cars and houses, it would be far more honest
to use the traditional way of stating the criterion: "God knows."
Unfortunately, when you need proof of ownership, God rarely
testifies on the witness stand. (013)
John (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|