David, (01)
It seems to me that there are two ways in which indirect is being used. (02)
In your (well-known) waterline example, the indirectness is due to the need
to specify what (part) is being measured. A ship can be measured in a number
of different ways, and one needs to specify the path/line that the
measurement will take. This illustrates that it is a (one-dimensional) line
that prototypically has length - and one needs a mechanism to get from the
ship to the line. However, the ship does have a part/line with that length. (03)
I think your (point pairs) assumes a 'standard' way of cashing these out
into a line. As you have explained to me a couple of times, this idealised
method in NOT standard for most engineering measurements. (04)
In the maximum allowable temperature example, the indirectness takes a
different form. Someone called it a rule. It can be called a capability or a
disposition. In this case, one does not expect to be able to examine the
ship and see the property. In this respect it is like Cambridge properties. (05)
I suspect that these should be treated differently. (06)
Regards,
Chris Partridge
Chief Ontologist (07)
Mobile: +44 790 5167263
Phone: +44 20 81331891
Fax: +44 20 7855 0268
E-Mail: partridgec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
BORO Centre Limited
Website: www.BOROCentre.com
Registered in England No: 04418581
Registered Office: 25 Hart Street, Henley on Thames,
Oxfordshire RG9 2AR (09)
This email message is intended for the named recipient(s) only. It may be
privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended named recipient
of this email then you should not copy it or use it for any purpose, nor
disclose its contents to any other person. You should contact BORO Centre
Limited as shown above so that we can take appropriate action at no cost to
yourself. All BORO Centre Limited outgoing E-mails are checked using Anti
Virus software. (010)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uom-ontology-std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:uom-ontology-std-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Leal
> Sent: 05 October 2009 10:13
> To: uom-ontology-std
> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?
>
> Dear All,
>
> As far as I can see there are two views:
>
> 1) A trope-based view. With this view, length (a member of Ed's kind of
> quantity - Q1) is class of trope. Waterline length is a subclasses of the
> length trope.
>
> 2) A function-based based view. With this view, length (a member of Ed's
> kind of quantity - Q4) is a set of equivalence classes of point pairs.
> Waterline length is a function from ship to length.
>
> I think that a number of people agree that the function-based view is
> useful, even whilst arguing about the philosophy.
>
> The use of the term "indirect property" for these functions has not been
> helpful. The term "quantity valued function" may be better.
>
> Best regards,
> David
>
> At 10:07 05/10/2009 +0200, you wrote:
> >> Dear Matthew, Pat, and Ingvar,
> >>
> >> In these discussions, I completely agree with Pat and Ingvar.
> >
> >John, Many thanks for the mail below!
> >Ingvar
> >
> >>
> >> MW>>>> Why is maximum allowable temperature not a temperature?
> >>
> >> IJ>>> It is a temperature.
> >>
> >> MW>> Then tell me which temperatures are the maximum
> >> >> allowable ones?
> >>
> >> PH> How should I know? You will have to look at the relevant
> >> > spec.
> >>
> >> I believe that Matthew has caught a "philosopher's disease"
> >> as Wittgenstein would say. Matthew is trying to force
> >> extensional definitions on concepts that cannot be defined
> >> by pointing to a concrete set.
> >>
> >> MW>> Then I ask you how I know when I look at a temperature whether
> >> >> it is maximum allowable one or not.
> >>
> >> PH> The question is meaningless.
> >>
> >> Making meaningless statements that only a philosopher could imagine
> >> is another symptom of a philosopher's disease. Wittgenstein would
> >> prescribe a course of therapy that would guide the patient toward
> >> more sensible speech.
> >>
> >> MW>> There is a possible world in which there is something that
> >> >> has that temperature.
> >>
> >> PH> Ah, OK, if you allow possible words then no problem. (Interesting
> >> > move, for a nominalist, but lets have that discussion in another
> >> > thread)
> >>
> >> This point is key to a cure. The original motivation for a purely
> >> extensional philosophy is to give clear, precise definitions by
> >> pointing to specific sets. But many important concepts cannot be
> >> defined extensionally. Those include hypothetical notions or plans
> >> for the future.
> >>
> >> To preserve a semblance of consistency, Matthew was forced to adopt
> >> not just a four-dimensional ontology that treats extensions in an
> >> unobservable future as if they were just as concrete as anything
> >> observable in the present, but also sets in an infinity of purely
> >> imaginary possible worlds.
> >>
> >> But possible worlds are only definable by intensions. There is no
> >> way to define them extensionally because they don't exist (or at
> >> least there is no way to observe them, point to them, travel to
> >> them, or get any news or reports from them). Nobody can say
> >> anything about the possible worlds except by making claims about
> >> unobservable fictions.
> >>
> >> In summary, it may be possible to formulate a coherent extensional
> >> theory that accounts for observable phenomena. But there is no way
> >> to generalize such a theory to support hypotheses or plans for the
> >> future. Any attempt to generalize such a theory inevitably leads
> >> to unsubstantiated statements about unobservable futures or claims
> >> about purely imaginary possible worlds.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >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
> >
> >
> >
>
> ============================================================
> David Leal
> CAESAR Systems Limited
> registered office: 29 Somertrees Avenue, Lee, London SE12 0BS
> registered in England no. 2422371
> tel: +44 (0)20 8857 1095
> mob: +44 (0)77 0702 6926
> e-mail: david.leal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> web site: http://www.caesarsystems.co.uk
> ============================================================
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|