RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
Adam,
This is disingenuous.
The issue is not whether it should be easy to show a faulty conclusion -
there may be subtle distinctions that one can only appreciate after study. I
in fact think this is so with 3D and 4D, from my experience discussing it
over the years. I hope Matthew will not mind me asking him to back me up on
this. He has said before on this list I think that it took him a lot of time
and study to appreciate the issue as well as he does now. This is not so
strange. I seem to remember Pat making similar points about discussing
logic. Difficult subjects require study. Discussion of the study can help,
as for example Matthew's description of 4D was I thought very useful - but
ignoring the resources seems to me 'criminal'. We have precious few
resources and we need to make sure we manage them properly - and not waste
them on re-inventing wheels.
To make my point clearer. I think that trying different KIF formulas,
without understanding the nature of the problem, is a very long-winded way
to get to a solution. If indeed it will get you there.
BTW, as I think you note:
(spatioTemporalPart JoesArmAtAge10 JoesArm)
is not an allowable relation (which I presume in KIF makes it false) in a 3D
ontology - as if JoesArm is a continuant it cannot have temporal parts.
Though, of course, it is true in a 4D ontology.
Regards.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Adam
Pease
Sent: 27 August 2001 17:41
To: mail@ChrisPartridge.net; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Cc: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; 'pat hayes'
Subject: RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
Chris,
Since you've studied this topic extensively, shouldn't it then be easy
to show, given the formalization below, a faulty conclusion? That would be
very concrete and would certainly help me (as well as others) to understand
the issues better.
Adam
At 05:14 PM 8/27/2001 +0200, Chris Partridge wrote:
>Adam,
>
>The 3D and 4D views are well-documented, and well enough understood.
>
>The sticking point for combining them seems to be:
>
>3D: At each point in time that a continuant exists - it completely exists.
>This implies that all its parts also exist.
>
>4D: Typically a physical object is extended in time. If one is happy to
talk
>about time-slices, this means that at each point in time at which it exists
>only a time-slice of this object exists.
>
>BTW I think endurantist and perdurantist are better terms than 3D and 4D as
>what is at stake is a view on what change is (see, for example, Chap 8 of
my
>book).
>
>I am not sure how one can have a consistent theory that encompasses both -
>and the people who write about this seem to take the same view (does anyone
>disagree?). That is not to say that there cannot be a translation between
>the two.
>
>While I am pleased that you are beginning to see the underlying issues of
3D
>vs 4D, I think you may be being extremely optimistic that you can solve
them
>in an afternoon - or less.
>
>It would help the discussion if it was carried on in a relatively informed
>basis. For a good introduction see Loux's 1998 Metaphysics Chap.6, and its
>bibliography - for a good article see Merricks T, Endurance and
>indiscernability, J. of Phil. 1994 - or even (though in nothing like the
>same class :)) the paper I submitted to the SUO list on meta-ontology.
>
>It seems to me that we going to waste everyone's time if there are good
>resources for handling a topic and we ignore them and try and re-define the
>problem and come up with instant answers to something people have spent man
>years (at least) working on. Isn't this re-inventing the wheel at its
worst?
>
>Regards,
>Chris
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Adam
>Pease
>Sent: 27 August 2001 16:41
>To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; 'pat hayes'
>Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
>
>
>
>Matthew,
> Did you have any further comments on the logical representation I
>presented in my message? That was the actual "meat" of the message and
>where I think we have hope of some progress. I may be the eternal
>optimist, but I think I found a solution that supports the 4d view that you
>want. I've copied that portion below.
>
>Adam
>
> >If I understand you correctly, then you may be closer to the current SUMO
> >representation than I thought. Here's a formalization in SUMO:
> >
> >(instance JoesArm OrganicObject)
> >(instance JoesArmAtAge10 OrganicObject)
> >(instance JoesArmAtAge20 OrganicObject)
> >(spatioTemporalPart JoesArmAtAge10 JoesArm)
> >(spatioTemporalPart JoesArmAtAge20 JoesArm)
> >(equal (BeginFn JoesArmAtAge10) (BeginFn (YearFn 1990)))
> >(equal (EndFn JoesArmAtAge10) (EndFn (YearFn 1990)))
> >(equal (BeginFn JoesArmAtAge20) (BeginFn (YearFn 2000)))
> >(equal (EndFn JoesArmAtAge20) (EndFn (YearFn 2000)))
> >
> >The key then is in the definition of a new relation for SUMO which we
> >could call 'spatioTemporalPart' which would allow us to deduce
> >
> >(not (equal JoesArmAtAge10 JoesArmAtAge20))
> >
> >Now, at the danger of pointing out a flaw in this, we'd have to assume
> >that no one who wants to use a 3d viewpoint would ever want to reify
> >temporal sub-parts. Because from the above formalization, they'd want to
> >conclude
> >
> >(equal JoesArmAtAge10 JoesArmAtAge20)
> >
> >I'm hoping though that this might be an acceptable compromise in terms of
> >practical modelling support.
>
>At 02:42 PM 8/26/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
> >Dear Adam,
> >
> >See comments below.
> >
> >
> >Matthew West
> >Principal Consultant
> >Shell Information Technology International Limited
> >Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> >
> >Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> >Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
> >Internet: http://www.shell.com
> >
> >snip
> > > > >
> > > > > Matthew,
> > > > > Ian's just pointed out to me problems with my response.
> > > > > SUMO could
> > > > > handle a 4d view but only in a trivial way by a knowledge
> > > > > engineer putting
> > > > > everything he cares about under the notion of Process and
> > > > > thereby throwing
> > > > > out the existing SUMO notions of identity that work on
> > > > > Object. That's not
> > > > > a good solution. I can see merit in both 3d and 4d views and
> > > > > the challenge
> > > > > is how to let them coexist in a meaningful way.
> > > >
> > > >MW: Unfortunately, you need to start probably above object.
> > > >4D classes have unchanging extents, for example.
> > >
> > > I'm referring to Object in its sense in SUMO. The current
> > > hierarchy is
> > >
> > > Entity
> > > Physical
> > > Object
> > > Abstract
> > >
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > Do you feel a change is needed to axioms about Physical
> > > <http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&sk>
> > b=Merge-WordNet&id=95>?
> >
> >MW: Physical is close to the 4D concept of spatio-temporal extent.
However,
> >a 4D view would be that Physical Entities are parts of space time, not
> >located
> >in it. I presume location is meant in some co-ordinate sense, which is an
> >abstraction. Before you can have an abstraction, you need to have
something
> >that forms the basis of abstraction, these are spatio-temporal extents,
> >including
> >one which is all of space-time (past, present, and future).
> >
> >MW: Existant has the concept of existing at one or more points in time.
It
> >is
> >fundamental to a 4D view that existance is for a period of time. This is
>one
> >of the
> >ways in which it differs significantly from a continuant based view which
> >the SUMO
> >has built in at a high level.
> >
> >MW: Also, a spatio-temporal extent can be quite arbitrary, rather as a
set
> >can have
> >arbitrary members.
> >
> >MW: Another problem is that many of the things that you have as abstract,
> >like roles,
> >are temporal parts of things in a 4D ontology. I would therefore think it
> >was safer
> >to start above physical.
> >
> >MW: There are also problems with the abstract concepts. Our classes would
>be
> >extensional and
> >unchanging. Properties and qualitities would be classes, and attributes
> >might be either
> >classes or spatio-temporal extents.
> >
> >MW: I.e. all abstract concepts would be classes/sets.
> >
> >MW: The best bet is to start with Chris M's Basic Set Theory and try to
> >build something
> >from there. However, it would be important to have a partition and
probably
> >a naming
> >convetion so that 4D and 3D concepts can be distinguished.
> >
> >snip
>
>Adam Pease
>Teknowledge
>(650) 424-0500 x571
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571