On Aug 7, 2009, at 3:02 AM, Chris Partridge wrote: (01)
> Pat,
>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>
> 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?
>
> In other words, I do not see where I make any claims about X or not X. (02)
I completely fail to follow your point. I did not even mention proof.
You doubted John's claim of orthogonality, which implies that you
perceive a relationship of some kind. I asked you to say what you
thought it was. (03)
>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> Not quite the traditional definition of extensionalism. But
> illustrates my
> point that it is difficult - but not impossible. (04)
There is nothing difficult about this, surely. It is easy to be an
extensionalist and not be 4D, is the point. The relevant form of
extensionalism has to be stated in 3D terms, of course. (05)
>
> 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).
>
> Ok, but do you have any criteria for identity or difference to back
> up your
> belief they are different. (06)
I do not need to provide any such criteria. All Im setting out to do
here is to claim that the position is coherent, not wanting to argue
for it or against it. (07)
But as this discussion is completely irrelevant to the purposes of
this thread, let us drop the matter. (08)
Pat (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|