On Aug 12, 2009, at 11:04 AM, ingvar_johansson wrote: (01)
> O.K., Pat H, thanks for the explanation below of your terminology. You
> propose to call the 3D view '3.1D view', but I think there would be
> fewer
> misunderstandings if it was called the the '4.1D view'. As far as I
> can
> see, it is four-dimensionalism with continuants. (02)
It certainly is not 4-dimensionalism, which is often attacked in very
strong terms by its proponents. It does however allow time to be
treated as a dimension, and allows explicit references to
circumstances at times (which is anathema to a presentist.) For
examples, see DOLCE and OBO and the surrounding literature, eg the
papers by Barry Smith on his 'snap/span' distinction. (03)
> But, for heaven's sake,
> let us not start a discussion about this.
> (04)
Oh, indeed. But just for the record, the term 'continuant' is an
artifact of what I was calling the 3.1D ontological framework. Any
uses of this word outside that framework represent terminology-creep,
and are likely to be subtle mis-uses. (05)
Pat (06)
> Ingvar
>
>>
>> On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:37 AM, ingvar_johansson wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Pat H,
>>>
>>> You wrote to Chris P:
>>>
>>>> Of course I do not deny that. I was assuming a distinction between
>>>> 3-D-
>>>> ism and presentism, which you apparently conflate, but that is
>>>> just a
>>>> matter of terminology.
>>>
>>> Can you please tell how you define '3-D-ism' and 'presentism',
>>> respectively.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry. Presentism is the view that only the present is real, so that
>> when we say 'exists' we mean, exists *now*. Tenses are used to refer
>> to the past and future, which are therefore thought of as
>> 'alternative
>> worlds'. (To a strict presentist, in fact, these are in a sense
>> imaginary worlds.) But worlds, in this view, are inherently 3- rather
>> then 4-dimensional. When formalized, of course, this yields axioms
>> which change as time passes, a phenomenon which the presentist
>> regards
>> as natural and even inevitable, on the grounds that time *is* change.
>> Much of ordinary language seems to presume a presentist conceptual
>> framework: we informally say things like 'Julius Caesar is no more' ,
>> meaning he does not exist *in the present*, and of course we use
>> tenses in the same way. The presentist of course sees the world as
>> being 3-dimensional, and typically mentions time, if at all, only
>> indirectly.
>>
>> What I was calling 3D in these discussions, but perhaps should have
>> been calling 3.1D, is a view that accepts the idea of time as
>> extended, and the need to refer to things in the past and the future,
>> but resists the idea that 'solid' things like people and objects are
>> truly 4-dimensional. It retains the 'presentist' view that a human
>> being, for example, is truly a 3-dimensional entity (the relevant
>> mantra is that all its parts are present whenever it is present, ie
>> it
>> has no temporal parts, such as a childhood in the case of a person)
>> but asserts that this 3D thing 'continues' through time, hence the
>> use
>> of the word "continuant". Note, this does not mean that it is
>> *extended* in time. There are things which extend in time, on this
>> ontological view, but they are inherently different from continuants,
>> more event-like, and are called occurrents. The occurrent/continuant
>> dichotomy is fundamental to these ontologies and colors their entire
>> approach: different ways of talking have to be used to refer to them,
>> and their relationships are carefully delineated. In contrast, what
>> are called 4D ontologies treat all physical things as occupying some
>> piece of space/time and (in the case of extensionalist versions, as
>> used by Chris and Matthew and indeed by me) individuated by their
>> spatiotemporal locations. Proponents of the 3.1D style of description
>> tend to characterize 4D ontologies by saying that they treat all
>> things as occurrents, which is kind of true but ontologically
>> misleading. It would be better to say that they deny the distinction
>> in the first place.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ingvar J
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494
>> 3973
>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> (07)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|